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

And what if your children aren't that intelligent? Should we just let them fall by the wayside because our state education system fails to acknowledge that attainment in exams isn't everything?

Because on a different thread it was implied I was lying/weird/in a purity spiral for saying I didnt/wouldn't go private even though I can afford it. I literally just started the thread for the poll. And results are even split so I'm none of the things I was accused of, even if you disagree with me

I'm amazed how entrenched this view of "you are damaging your children/lying if you say you won't send to private" is.

Why doesn’t the thread and poll show some posters think those things rather than none?

I haven’t read it closely but I’m sure others have pointed out the superiority thing

No. No it isn't. I pointed out I could afford it because I was told on the other thread that if I could afford I would send my kids, because who wouldn't? And i was lying when I said I didn't (oe living in a rich area eith outstanding schools, or paid a fortune to live in my house or all manner of other made up bollocks). As illustrated by your delightful post.

The reality is I choose not to. And I'm not in a minority.

I've no idea why it's any skin off your nose and why so defensive.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying

I mean do as you wish. Mine went private. I want to spend my money on education. Depends where your values lie I guess.

I’m not sure why this thread makes you say

so I'm none of the things I was accused of

There seems to be some similar posts on both threads around superiority or purity spiral

Depends where you are and what the local comp schools are like. My DD was really lucky that the school she got (our top choice of comp) was amazing and in the top 20 of all secondary schools including public/private …… but my DS didn’t get in there (and since the head left that school had gone down hill anyway) his school is ok, but I wish I could afford to send him to a public school

You’ve said in your posts that you don’t think education at private schools is any better than state schools and private schools spoon feed etc and you think there are advantages for your children in mixing with a more diverse peer group and it doesn’t really matter where bright children go to school because they do well anywhere etc. It sounds like you believe that the state school would be the better school for your children and that private schools aren’t very good schools rather than it having anything to do with principles?

I believe that in general private schools provide a better standard of education and fundamentally disagree with the idea that it doesn’t really matter how bright children are educated so obviously my opinion about where to send my children will be different.

I went to a truly awful state school and had a really traumatic experience there. I am so grateful that my parents put aside their principles to send me private in the end (the only other option).

No. No it isn't. I pointed out I could afford it because I was told on the other thread that if I could afford I would send my kids, because who wouldn't? And i was lying when I said I didn't (oe living in a rich area eith outstanding schools, or paid a fortune to live in my house or all manner of other made up bollocks). As illustrated by your delightful post.

The reality is I choose not to. And I'm not in a minority.

I've no idea why it's any skin off your nose and why so defensive.

Like I've said a few times. We're in the majority who won't be able to afford private education.

There are good state schools and poor state schools. Most parents will make the best choice for their children in their in circumstances and within their means.

Very few parents would deliberately choose to give their children a poor quality education (including, I'd imagine most people who claim from a position of privilege that they'd not use private education on principle, when what they actually mean is "I'm fortunate and have a range of good options so in my situation I can choose state without sacrificing my children's wellbeing, safety and education and don't need to worry about those things").

You've said your state offer is good and that you're willing to use tutors and paid sports coaching etc to enrich the state education. They're perfectly reasonable things to do and is not that different from millions of other parents.

That doesn't match with claiming you're not willing to pay to be part of a system that promotes inequality and disadvantages the less fortunate.

I do understand that some people choose not to pay for private education because they believe it's not the best for their dc and that's fine.

I would just say in my experience as a child and as a parent, with a wide ranging social and professional network across countries, I think it's hard to say that the state school experience is as good as private. Whether you choose to not take that option is completely personal choice and doesn't mean you're a bad parent, it's just about different values relating to the importance of school and education.

I will also say my parents made the state choice for my sister and I. And they regret it. Not because anything went really wrong but they realise we would likely have had better experience in private school. Neither of them was privately educated nor knew many people in their generation who were (they both went to grammar schools - selective) so they didn't really understand and appreciate the differences.

“If your children are intelligent they will thrive at the local comp.”

I don’t really believe this tbh. I think it can happen and I was one of those children but for every bright kid that manages to do well from a poor comp, there will be others that just don’t fulfil their potential because of the environment. Aspiration was low at my school and I’d get a contextual offer now to many universities looking at their lists. Mine was just a bit rubbish and not a full on sink school- I can’t imagine what those must be like. I did exam invigilation in a school that had a full time policeman on site. Even during exams behaviour was appalling. There were kids chucking tables around, swearing, being abusive to the teachers. It wasn’t worth the money to do it (probably why they’d needed to go to students in the first place).

They’re your kids, you can send them up chimneys if you want 🤷‍♀️

It is possible if the circumstances are right and you have access to a decent local school and are prepared to top up gaps in teaching with tutoring.

Bur this is a postcode lottery and it’s very noticeable that the people who are quick to pat themselves on the back for sticking to their principles are invariably also the ones who have a good comprehensive in catchment.

Also while I am attracted to the theory that having a diverse demographic mix in schools is good for society it rarely works that cleanly in practice. Comprehensive schools polarise into socioeconomic groupings according to their location. Middle class families who are attracted to state schools with good reputations push house prices up and often price the families who are supposed to benefit from this out of the equation.

Having lots of middle class families send their children to a popular comprehensive is a mixed blessing. It can help create a positive feedback loop but it often creates schools with two very distinct cultures and tribes within the same institution, the MC kids and the “others”, who are treated very differently.

There’s no easy solution to any of this. Families have to make the best choices for their budgets. I don’t blame any parent for any well intentioned choice. But I think the OP’s position, while superficially correct, is naive and simplistic.

We have the lottery system where I live so you don't get to choose catchment schools and my DS is friends with and going on to 6th form college with children from all social demographic backgrounds. It is lazy stereotyping from people that want to believe this is why happens to justify their bought education.

The thing is though if everyone had such a nihilistic view of state education as this and given the opportunity went private, where does that leave the concept of education for all. It is all very well arguing that you are doing your best for your individual child but don't they have to live in this society that we create unless of course like Thatcher you think there is no such thing as society.

@LolaSmiles has hit the nail on the head.

If you genuinely are sending your children to a deprived comprehensive where bullying and violence is an everyday occurrence with constant disruption to lessons while you could afford to pay for them to be educated in a calmer environment then I judge you 100% for sacrificing your children for 'principles'.

BUT the reality is the money you have is being used wisely in other areas instead of private education. You live in an area of a decent school where your children are happy. You would prefer to use the funds you have to supplement their education with other activities/holidays and give them more in the way of inheritance. So your children will always be more privileged than those who have little money AND their parents don't see the value of education.

Ultimately we all do our best for our children. The majority of us want to be good citizens and contribute to our society too but not at the expense of our own.

It is all very well arguing that you are doing your best for your individual child but don't they have to live in this society that we create unless of course like Thatcher you think there is no such thing as society.

Of course. I don’t disagree with you in principle. But it’s much much easier to make the “socially conscious” choice if that choice doesn’t radically disadvantage your own children.

My contention is that the vast majority of parents who take the decision to go down the state route do so in the knowledge that the risk of this happening is relatively small. I am simply not prepared to make a choice which actively disadvantages my child because it adheres with a social principle when my actions will have limited impact on the broader societal outcome anyway.

If that makes me selfish so be it but in reality I think most parents do the same. That may not mean paying to go private because many parents don’t need to do this. If they are lucky enough to have high quality schools in the area they won’t have to. That doesn’t mean these are automatically people with better social principles. It just means they are people with more socially acceptable choices.

The thing is though if everyone had such a nihilistic view of state education as this and given the opportunity went private, where does that leave the concept of education for all. It is all very well arguing that you are doing your best for your individual child but don't they have to live in this society that we create unless of course like Thatcher you think there is no such thing as society.
It's not nihilistic. It's just the reality of the system at the moment. I've worked in schools in a range of catchments and contexts. Anyone who thinks that the state system is a beacon of fairness and excellent provision and most kids will reach their potential anywhere is very naive.

Parents are understandably going to do what's right for their children. Why would any parent (with the means to do so) find out their child is without a maths teacher for GCSE, is likely not to achieve their potential and then say "actually DC I'm not going to get a tutor to help you learn"?

As I've said repeatedly, there's good state schools, failing state schools and everything in between. There's a thread at the moment where parents are sharing their DC's experiences in secondary school, though I believe the thread title/OP is more Key Stage 3. What needs to happen is people use their vote wisely, lobby their MPs, pay attention to the issues, not create silly boogiemen about what parents and children are like if they use private schools.

As with many issues, it's very easy to claim things are made on principle when you're in a privileged position to have a lot of options and are unlikely to ever be in the situations others face.

It's also silly to claim that on principle you're not willing to fund anything that disadvantages other students, but then go on to do tutoring, instrument lessons, sports coaching etc.

There's nothing wrong with any of the decisions above by the way. Many parents do it because the system is far, far from ideal, but trying to claim some moral high ground because buying educational opportunities stops short of private school fees makes no sense.

Rich people either buy their kids into an Outstanding + amazing school & then buy all the enrichment options, or they buy into private school. I did the numbers - in most areas of the UK the type of parents who take either option are similar, many even work together.

Also assuming an average of 20k fees a year - it would cost parents £260k per child to put them through private from 5-18. For two it would cost 500k. For three 760k. The parents who talk about sending their kids to ‘State School’ often spend 750-1m+ on properties to buy themselves into outstanding catchments.

Fairly interesting article on socioeconomic dictions within state schools:

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/people-like-us-the-middle-class-and-the-local-comp

“Only a minority of parents seemed to be acting on the basis of strongly held community-oriented or political principles. Parents were more likely to see ordinary secondary schools as risky but also highly beneficial environments for their children. While tending to dismiss the usual GCSE league tables as indicators of quality, the families saw schools with a broad ethnic mix as being good places in which to prepare young people for life in a multicultural society and a globalised world. And once in the school, the parents found that their children were given extra resources, a feature they knew to be giving them advantages.”

and this:

“British comprehensives are so socially segregated that, in 2018, schools in rich areas were much more likely to be rated as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted. This economic disparity in education expects working-class students to choose between their education and their sense of identity. If they want to access well-resourced, high-achieving schools, that almost always means schools in middle-class catchment areas.”

https://nowthenmagazine.com/articles/working-class-students-at-middle-class-schools-exist-in-a-liminal-state-sheffield

it’s disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that there aren’t major and pervasive socioeconomic divides in the state sector. Arguably something that should be the focus of attention for the critics of private schools, over the dreaded ‘other’ (the banning of which would do nothing to address the underlying issues present).

Wenfy
Out of curiosity on a similar thread a long time ago, I looked at house prices in my region and day fees at local private schools.

Once you factored in house price to be in catchment and interest on the larger mortgage, a family in my region with one child would be substantially better off financially living in an affordable area and paying private fees over moving into catchment of some of the sought after schools.

Realising that was part of what changed my view on private education.

Another part that changed my mind was working in a high performing school where I was responsible for monitoring several classes being taught by unqualified non-specialist staff. They were nice colleagues and were doing their best, but the education quality in those lessons wasn't as good as it should be. Because of the catchment, a lot of parents had private tutors so the gaps were closed by GCSE. I can't blame them for doing that. Many parents with the means would do the same. There's undoubtedly students in other local schools experiencing similar or worse with their parents either unaware or unable to fund private tutoring to close the gaps.

The system is broken and people with good options and the means to top up pretending that their decisions are rooted in deep concern for others seems disingenuous when you've lived and breathed the system for years.

How many people does this stark choice honestly affect though I.e we send our DC to state comprehensive that has a stabbing in several classrooms a day or private! A vast majority of private school choices are made by wealthy people living in wealthy areas with good state provision but they reject that option for a perceived better option of private.

We have the state lottery system where I live so it absolutely goes with the risk, if you like to call it that, of not knowing what school you will get. I know a few friends of DDs who have gone private this year (yr 7) and they could have all gone to the state schools in this lottery provision but they chose private as it is 'better'. DD's friend it seems has a very different life now. As far as I can see it is bad for the environment as bus or car miles away to next county, the days are too long so no time for free/ creative expression and discovering who you are as you become a young adult. This is a really important principle to DH and I so we don't think that is good for DC. And from what I can see an unhealthy interest in Tik Tok and making videos about yourself that are essentially focusing on the aesthetic, I work in privacy and cyber security and would never let my child have such an online presence. I don't like the competitive undereating and the declaration of fat girls in conversation, just the whole focus on how you look but an absence of intellectual conversation. My DD is super slim but when she joined her friend and her new private school friends for birthday event, DD felt like she was judged for having seconds, a couple of girls commented on how she could possibly have more than two table spoons of something! I think it is pretty toxic and I know what an all girls school is like as went to private until I was 12. I also know my friend's 18 year old does not like to talk about her private school experience because of how they didn't care about your 'mental health' just applied the pressure. So in my mind it absolutely depends how you define 'better'.

@Goldenbear but surely it all depends on the individual private school. Of course some are not good at supporting their students mentally, but the experience of one child at one given school can't be extrapolated to apply to all privat schools.

We initially looked at 3 in our local area - 1 is very much an academic hothouse and we know that it would not be the best environment for our DD so we have dismissed it. Of the other two, one achieves highly academically but is much less results driven and has a very good enrichment programme of activities, etc and the third does well academically but is more focussed on art, drama and sports and has a reputation for excellent pastoral care.

@Goldenbear that's s bit of a generalisation of state vs private. I think in your case, the schools you're comparing could both be either state or private.
In our case the private is closer. Lots of creative and sports clubs to choose from. None of DDs friends have TikTok (her friends in state do). No talk of body image (but lots of talk from her friends in state).