Not to send my children to private school even though I can afford it

[AdamRyan]

I believe in comprehensive education and think children should all be educated together, to improve social mobility and prevent a "brain drain" where less privileged children go to some schools, and more privileged go to others.
Am I in the minority and being naive?

YANBU - comprehensive schools are the way to go
YABU - I'd send my children private if I could

Also my reasons for supporting comprehensive schools have to do with society, not just my kids. It benefits noone to have sink schools where middle class children don't go. I don't think grammar schools have been a good thing in areas that have them and I don't think league tables are helpful either.

AdamRyan - you can do whatever you like. But it won't change the fact that independent schools exist (from pointless ones to excellent ones), grammars exist, faith schools exist, selective academies exist and - even notwithstanding this - the whole state school system in the U.K. is a postcode lottery. Those with the financial means will always have more options, regardless of whether independent schools exist or not. They will just pay the inflated house prices / stamp duty to live in the 'right' catchment areas. They will make sure they get involved with their child's education in a way other parents in other areas will not. This will reflect in the ethos and standards in the school. This happens regardless.

The school I went included a people from many different circumstances, backgrounds and means of paying the fees. I has friends who has burseries, friends whose parents were on low salary but had the fees paid by grandparents. My dad paid my fees (he came from a poor family abroad and started his own business in the UK), but when my parents divorced, my mum had to get bank loans so I could finish school. I also went to a non-selective school so there were also a range of abilities. Yes there were many pupils who came from rich families, but I had a great experience there and the alternative would be to go to my state school in special measures with the boys who beat me up at my state primary school.

I'm going to share this link to a current thread where lots of posters are sharing their experiences and their children's experiences in some state schools at the moment, including ones that are desirable to parents and have historically good results.

I got a couple of pages in before seeing a post that reminded me of this thread.

The poster basically said that they used to think a bright and motivated child would succeed anywhere, but they've seen how dire it is in even reasonable schools that they no longer have faith in that any more.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4840016-to-ask-if-parents-of-secondary-school-students-are-aware

...whereas you, in contrast, sound lovely.

my priority is my child’s education. I send her to a local school because it is excellent and does a good job of meeting het needs. I’m honestly not sure a private school could do better. The second that stops being the case, we will explore all our options, including private.

it’s all well and good to say you believe in a particular model, but your child is the one who has to deal with a lifetime of consequences for your principles. Your job as a parent is to make sure your child’s needs are met. If they can be met with your current method, that is excellent, if not, you should always be prepared to reevaluate.

this is a lesson I have learned over and over again as a parent. We all go in with particular ideals. Then we meet our actual children. If we don’t learn to parent the children we have and not the children we imagined, our children suffer.

These threads always bring out people applauding the op for being so virtuous and their child is thriving in the 'leafy green comp'.

Whereas on other threads people are despairing at the general deterioration of behaviour in state schools.

Each to their own op but why start a thread about it?

For me if your child is really smart and outgoing, they will probably do fine anywhere. If your child is smart and rather shy, maybe private. If your child is average and needs a bit of extra help private. It also really depends on how good the local schools.

If you go to a really crappy comp with appalling results and behaviour, does that somehow count as more "real" ? Are those kids somehow "better" for having seen and experienced violence in the classroom and a shitty attitude to learning.

Yes because apparently it makes the child ‘resilient’.

I think some people just like the idea of ‘poshos’ going to a comp and being given a hard time because of their background - which is fine because it’s ‘punching up’.

Where did I say "most people" could afford it? I said I think more than 7% probably can if they made other adjustments.. possibly really big ones like relocating or only having one child. I'm objecting to the idea that's its so completely impossible for "ordinary" people. When I moved out of the south east my mortgage became 1/3 what it had been. I did it precisely so that I could afford this if I needed to...which it turns out I did.

I completely agree that not everyone can do it and I absolutely think that the answer is not found in abolishing this sector or being envious of it or sneering at it as some posters have done, but in seeing what's possible with appropriate investment per head and a long term government plan like the one they just announced for the NHS to bring it about.

So more people could afford to fork out thousands of pounds a year if only they cared as much about education/tried as hard as you? Is that really what you believe? Wake up.

It is a huge privilege to be able to afford the fees. Massive. They are WAY out of reach for the majority of people in this country, which is why a tiny minority of children go to private school. This is in fact precisely what people paying for private school want by and large - small classes, with the kids whose parents “don’t value education” the way you do all filtered out.

I completely understand why people choose private school. They think it’s better than the state options so if they can afford it then why wouldn’t they. But I do object to people being disingenuous about their reasons for it and I really really can’t stand people who talk about it like it’s a moral choice or imply that they are better than those who can’t afford it simply because they work harder or love their kids more. That is insidious and wrong.

I agree with your last few lines. There’s no need to pull down a sector to make the state sector closer

Do it the other way around

It’s a mistake to damage the private sector, even if it is an easy vote getter

The whole point of this post is that the is that the CAN afford it but chooses not to and lots of people agreeing with them. So if this thread is an example of the population as a whole then yes more than 7% can afford it.

Maybe some of the people who can afford it but choose not to send their kids to private school on moral grounds should flip their logic round and ease the burden on the state system and send them private.

That way you are still paying all the tax you do, paying again and saving the state £££ in having to educate your children.

I genuinely cannot understand your intentions towards starting this thread but you sure have demonstrated your ignorance towards the demographics within each sector of education.

To answer your original question - no your idealistic dream of all children from all backgrounds being educated together will never happen. As many posters have pointed out, if wealthier parents did not go private, they would simply be pushing up the house prices near decent schools to ensure their children are not forced to attend a failing school.

You also seem to have some ridiculous notion that all private education is some sort of networking club. This does apply for the most exclusive schools (ie the ones our leaders attended and send their children to) but the overwhelming majority are actually professional parents paying for their children's education because they want them to achieve their full potential.

While a portion of MN is hellbent on discrediting those that opt for private education for their children citing it as an unfair advantage, they seem to be blind to so many other advantages. PP have mentioned many in terms of having parents who are invested in their children but another huge factor in our decision is being an ethnic minority. My parents and I have experienced racism first hand. I have had to fight harder than a white person to get equal pay for the same job. I have been bullied at my state school for the colour of my skin (and had to deal with all sorts of comparisons to poo amongst other insults). Things are getting better, recent leaders in US and UK being a minority is showing that attitudes are changing but there is every chance my children will have to fight harder than their white counterparts. So if educating them privately will give them something to help level the playing field, I have no qualms in doing so. I want their memories of education to be happy ones where they enjoyed learning, not where they succeeded against adversity; they have the rest of their lives for that

I posted up thread re my DC going to both types of school. The reason they started in the private sector was the shitty experience I had at a local 1970s comp. My mother was from a genteel impoverished family and thought it would be good for us to get a more rounded education.
My head was flushed down the loo frequently! My sister was OK but I hated it. I swore I would never send my DC to such a sh*t hole. I worked my socks off in my career to pay private fees. I would do it all again. My son declined Eton and Marlborough scholarships. His reasoning was they were not going to help his career. I was fuming at the time but he is a clever, considered and a decent human being who wants to be helpful to society. My DD is the same and will work in the NHS.
You choose your children's schools with the thought they choose your nursing home!!

I completely understand why people choose private school. They think it’s better than the state options so if they can afford it then why wouldn’t they. But I do object to people being disingenuous about their reasons for it and I really really can’t stand people who talk about it like it’s a moral choice or imply that they are better than those who can’t afford it simply because they work harder or love their kids more. That is insidious and wrong
Agree with this, but the central topic on this thread isn't concerned with the majority of us who can't afford independent education.

The thread is about people who claim the COULD afford it but don't, usually with fairly disingenuous reasons why that have glaring holes.

For those who can afford to and are standing around pretending they're oh so principled (whilst being very willing to turn a blind eye to all the ways they are buying their children education advantage), most have a good state offer available to them. It's not about principle at all. It's that they're free to choose (which many of us aren't) and they've decided that because the state offer is good, they don't view the private fees as worth the cost, which is fine. But it isn't about noble principles.

If you follow the claims of apparently choosing state on an issue of principle, then posters must also agree that they're happy to sacrifice their children's education, send them to a failing school by choice if that's their local offer and not do any parental top ups because after all their "principles" mean they're against buying advantage. I would question the moral standpoint of a parent who would actively sabotages their children's future like that to preserve ideological purity.

I also doubt many of them would actually do that though. It's just very easy to play the principles card when you're in a position with a range of favourable options.

This thread is a little bit like "my son actually PREFERRED Hull Uni over Oxbridge" :o)))

My son declined Eton and Marlborough scholarships

FancyFran where did he decide to go?

And? Different people like different things. My ILs can't fathom why I like backpacking in the majority world, staying in places that per night cost what one drink costs where they stay. They love all inclusive 5 star places with deferential staff. That's my idea of hell. I like other things.

I don't think I would have liked Oxford University. I loved my Northern one. It was an exceptional education as well because universities can be exceptional while not being Oxbridge.

I do agree that posters not understanding that a state school in Thornton Heath is different to one in Barnes are disingenuous. That doesn't mean there isn't a point to be made about elitism built into the system.

I have been on and off MN for 17 years give or take and one thing that never changes is the ready supply of people who feel the need to criticise others’ educational choices and clap themselves on the back for their own.
I can never shake the suspicion that if they were that sure of their correctness they wouldn’t need to start threads like this. But who knows, really

@Barbadossunset I can't say where he went as he now works in the CS. However it was a non selective academy (however the school is full of mc families, professional parents and very snobbish teachers). My son had a good experience but he does say he should have gone for private for sixth form as he didn't get the subjects he wanted. I do know his former school actively encourages SEN children to go to another school a few miles away. New families are attracted to their results but as I previously said up thread individual children stick with there own sort. It is all smoke and mirrors.

Lolasmiles, it's possible to choose state as a matter of principle without sacrificing your kids education, you have a very narrow view of the world

Yes that's possible IF you can afford to live in the right catchment and IF your child is NT, confident etc and IF the school deals with bullying, intimidation, lack of ambition, vaping, etc and IF they offer the subjects your child wants to do and IF they can recruit specialist teachers ......lots of IFs there. If all those things line up then yes you can choose state, but the first one of those IFs might well include as much £££ as school fees. So not really so principled.

Lolasmiles, it's possible to choose state as a matter of principle without sacrificing your kids education, you have a very narrow view of the world
I haven't said it isn't possible.

There are, as I've said, many good state schools.

There's also a lot of state schools that are experiencing large challenges and it's understandable that parents (whatever their means) will want to do the best they can for their children in their circumstances and doing that (in whatever way they choose) isn't them chasing a network of banking friends or their children's place in elite society or any of the other silly claims.

Choosing state on principle works when people are in the fortunate position of:

• having the ability to live in the right place to avoid the poor quality schools
• have the ability to buy in desirable catchment areas that come at a premium
• are fortunate that the state schools near them are offering a good curriculum offer, with good pastoral care and get good results
• having the money to top up with tutors and enrichment as required
• have the funds available to say "we could go private if we wanted to"

In the above situation what people tend to mean is that they don't really agree with private education AND they're in a fortunate position that their local state offer means that they don't have to consider weighing up the trade offs.

Which is fine. There's a lot of people who make that decision.

When people start getting high and mighty that their decisions aren't just about making the right decision for their children/circumstances but because they have some sort of moral high ground where they couldn't possibly contribute to any form of educational inequality the house of cards comes falling down. They claim they couldn't contribute to educational inequality as some sort of principle, but actually here are all the ways they're doing the very thing they claim they are against. As long as they stop short of paying school fees then they're classed as pure enough, and they can pat themselves on the back.