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

When the state has to educate all comers, the outcome is usually at best, fairly indifferent. Sad to say, but usually not far off the mark, So if you are happy/ content for your own children to just hit this mark, and reach the minimum levels of competence, then that's your choice. I would rather pay for education in the hope that my DC could do a bit better.

I didn't!

What a load of absolute drivel

Ain’t that the truth? It’s as if nobody state educated ever went to top universities.

We have no chance of paying for private school like many middle class families but I still agree with the OP. So you don't think children form genuine friendships across socio-economic groups within schools without their parents' engineering it? I'll have to tell my DS and DD that their friendships are not genuine and that has been my Master plan all along! Talk about patronising to people that you obviously think are plebs and have nothing to offer children from middle class backgrounds. Quite apart from anything, understanding different backgrounds and working cooperatively with people who have different perspectives due to that socio -economic diversity, is definitely not a skill you can acquire where the socioeconomic status is all the same I.e wealthy!

What's your ideal than more social segregation where we can only mix with people in our designated social class- how lovely.

My issue is with the euphemistic expressions where people act like mixing with children like mine are part of making sure their children have the right sort of experience for their wealthy children. It's patronising crap used to further add to the 'we're the good guys' argument.

I'd much rather people were honest and said that the state option for their DC is good so that's the decision they've made for their children, and spared the we benevolently choose state because we care about inequality, it's important our children mix with people who aren't as wealthy as us etc.

Students will typically find their friends based on people they share interests with, and many state schools also aren't the hive of socio-economic diversity that posters mention.

Like I've said upthread, I'm in favour of a overhaul of the state sector, better funding of related services so stretched state schools can focus on providing an excellent education instead of papering over the cracks, and a proper offer of high quality technical education as well as academics. Having worked in schools across a range of catchments and that have different challenges, I've come to a more nuanced view on private education than I used to have. Now I often read threads on here and think there's a lot of privileged posters who ought to count their lucky stars they aren't having to make the decisions that other parents are.

Sorry to disprove your theory but my DS will definitely not be reaching minimal levels of competency in his GCSE results this year, two of his friends will effortlessly achieve all 9s- they survived, I have a DN in one of the top independent schools my DS was helping him with maths revision! DN is clever but as is this case with state schools there is a mix of talent and intelligence. I'm sorry to burst your bubble but private schools have no more a monopoly on clever, talented kids than state schools. Added, to the fact that you have bought all this advantage, you are definitely cutting your nose off to spite your face when it comes to top uni applications.

We have the lottery admissions system where I am, there is no catchment area, that's why lots of people that think like you send there children to private school in year 7 as they don't want to risk any mixing with the serfs!

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but private schools have no more a monopoly on clever, talented kids than state schools

So since state schools are as good as, if not better, than private schools, why does the existence of private schools annoy you so much?
.

We have the lottery admissions system where I am, there is no catchment area, that's why lots of people that think like you send there children to private school in year 7 as they don't want to risk any mixing with the serfs!
What are you on about?
I don't have children at private school.

I have an issue with the disingenuous moralising of privileged people who choose state when they have a good state offer and are fortunate to have not been in positions other parents have been. I also object to the euphemisms that the children of wealthy posters get to have some sort of nice social experience by mixing with children like mine, as opposed to simply going to school and seeing who they make friends with. It's more patting themselves on the back for being caring.

Like I've said several times on this thread, I've seen the excellent, the good, the bad and the ugly in the state system and my views on private education have changed over time. I don't think it's as black and white as I used to.

I also know in my region it would be cheaper for a one child family to live in a more affordable area and send their children private than to buy houses in the better catchment areas. Using the logic of some on this thread this family are awful and pro-inequality, but the families a couple of miles down the road who buy in catchment and have private tutors are the moral ones who are doing their bit for social justice.

“Added, to the fact that you have bought all this advantage, you are definitely cutting your nose off to spite your face when it comes to top uni applications.”

60% of private school students go onto Russell Group Universities. There’s also an increasing amount going to Ivy League universities in the USA - 1 in 5 apparently.

So you think they do have a monopoly on clever and talented kids? I suppose you need to justify the fees somehow.

I think we all know private schools have the better amenities, more resources, more money for extra curricular activities, this is obviously due to all the trappings of wealth but yes, I am absolutely refuting the argument that private schools have more intelligent kids- they don't, unless you have some kind of thought process that aligns itself with eugenics! If you think social segregation is a good thing then yes, I could see why you choose private. That this advantage is propped up by charitable status, rebates on business rates due to this charitable status and good PR in fulfilling its charitable role, gives the schools an advantage state schools don't have due to no charitable status, that is is unnecessary disadvantage and this is why they annoy me so much!

It's not just tutors.

The family who bought in the catchment of the better school down the road and paid a premium because of course, like everyone does, they cared about their children have probably done many if not all of the following:

• paid for their children to have swimming lessons
• paid for their children to learn a musical instrument
• taken their children on holiday either abroad or to a place different from where they are growing up
• paid money, whether in fares or admissions, to go to a museum
• paid money to go to an art gallery
• paid for their children to do a sport outside school
• paid for their children to do a creative activity outside school
• paid for their children to do an academic activity outside school (Kumon, coding camp, French club, whatever)
• paid for their children to do an activity at school of any kind
• bought their children books just for fun
• taken their children to a historic house or other interesting place which cost some money
• taken their children to the cinema or the theatre

There are probably a billion other examples. I personally know lots of families who would never be able to afford to do any of these things and obviously their children are disadvantaged as a consequence, compared to children who are able to do these enriching activities. Would be interested to know how many of the 'we go state because it's the moral thing to do' have never done any of these!

I know families who can't afford the cost of a £3 movie night at school, never mind thinking of the theatre or a museum or a coding camp.

I know a child who lives less than ten miles from the Natural History Museum - we went there on a school trip and he was blown away. I told him it was free and he could maybe ask his parents if they could bring him back one day and he looked astonished. I bet they didn't (he probably didn't ask).

I know another child who saw the ceiling in the chapel at Windsor Castle on another school trip and was clearly just completely enraptured. But his parents will never take him to see even Hampton Court which is much closer than Windsor.

I know another child who I saw in the supermarket aged 10 trying to buy a basket of food and her mum's card wouldn't work (because there was clearly not enough money on it) and she was completely stressed out so I paid for her basket of food and told her not to tell her mum (because I didn't want the mum to think she had to pay me back).

No matter if you send your children to state or private schools, their own family circumstances will make a bigger difference to them than any school.

I would like to see more money aimed at giving children opportunities to do the sorts of things I listed above and more money aimed at low income families so they don't just have to stress about if they have enough to pay the bills or feed themselves and can perhaps offer their children something above just existing. Schools are the least of it in some ways.

Yes, that is a shocking figure but I was actually referencing RG institution's contextual approach to admissions which definitely is tricky for the private school pupil of average to low intelligence. However, not to worry if that applies to you or people you know as the university you attend is only part of the picture. If you have no charisma and no original thoughts that is equally troublesome when it comes to job opportunities. The other issue is that now the proles are starting to occupy positions of power in professions that were previously dominated by the Hooray Henry's, they may not be looking to recruit those who seemingly have had everything handed to them on a platter.

No exactly a shocker that private school kids get opportunities to attend Ivy League universities, I know the cost of that opportunity i.e massive, hardly a surprise state school kids can't go to them.

It's not about the putative family who "paid for all the things"
It's about giving children from low socioeconomic backgrounds exposure to different backgrounds so they can see the other avenues available to them. Being in a social group where working hard and getting good results, aspiring to good jobs, is really vital to social mobility.

If you are insular and only consider you and yours this may not be relevant of course. But I don't think we should be ghettoising society based on income.

BonjourCrisette
I completely agree with your post.

The moralising send state on principle because you can't do anything that advantages your child/disadvantages others, whilst being willing to pay for a whole range of opportunities that many children will never access is an illogical argument.

I don't know about you, but the more time I spend working in education and seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly, the more I come to the conclusion that the nice black and white sounding soundbites are simple, but wrong, and the real issues are complex and grey.

As kind as it is if you to be concerned, I think those privately educated Russell Group/Ivy League graduates will be just fine tbh.

Society is already divided based on income (and other things but income is one of the major driving factors).

You, Adam, are the putative family who lived near enough to a school that wasn't terrible and could send your children there, safe in the knowledge that you could pick up the gaps. Did your kids have swimming lessons outside school? Have you ever taken them to the cinema? Have they joined a club you had to pay for? If you thought they were going to fail their Maths GCSE would you be able to either help them or pay for someone else to do so?

@LolaSmiles I totally agree that it's hundreds of times more complex than 'did you send your kids to a private school when there was an OK comp down the road'. I don't work in education, but if you do I guess you see a lot more of this stuff than I did as a parent helper. There are some children who have the odds stacked against them from birth and it goes way deeper than sending middle class kids to comprehensives to set some kind of better example (this is just as patronising as the idea that working class children are somehow there to provide your advantaged child with free life experience). When I talked to the child about the Natural History Museum and how it was free and he could go there any time, my own child was astonished (she was in my group too). She was fortunate to be a child brought up by someone who considered museums a normal part of life. The school she went to will probably have less impact on her world outlook than the fact that she can't remember the first time she went to a museum because she's always gone to them.

Look, you want to redefine what charitable purposes are. That’s fine, but you need to tell us how. Then we can see who benefits, who is harmed, and see if we agree.
at the moment all you’re doing is snarling at the people who piss you off. That’s not actionable policy.

I don’t imagine many private schools turn a big profit. Many are set up as not for profit so corp tax is not a biggie. VAT is paid for by the parents (and I doubt the school can afford to reduce fees to mitigate) so it’s rates that will really hit the schools hard if they lose their charitable status - that and obviously any parents withdrawing their children where the places cannot be filled elsewhere.

you do seem to be fortunate in being able to make the choice to send your child to an acceptable state school, and seem to find it the morally right thing to do. I too have the wealth to cover private schooling, and though I would love to be able to send all of my children to the state school, one of them was assaulted on such a regular basis with the school seemingly unable to stop it. It would have been morally wrong to keep sending that child to the state school and daily assault, and they were moved to private school. I’m grateful that I have the option to be able to afford to educate my child in a safe environment- many don’t.

I have a friend who’s child was in the same situation as mine - daily beatings- but they were so fundamentally opposed to private school they refused to consider a move and their child in the end stopped attending and dropped out on mental health grounds with no exams. I’d suggest being evangelically opposed to private schools when - if you have the wealth - they can provide respite to a desperate child is unwise. Many who have the wealth would love to be in a position to have that choice.

I personally believe private school fees ought to have VAT added as they are a luxury.

With respect, this is complete arse. The law defines what different legal entities are, how they are constituted, and what they can do. How else can anyone know where the hell they are or how they should conduct their activities. Good god alive what nonsense some people do talk.

So do you work in private schools? I don't really understand all of your arguments as state school provides some of the opportunities that you listed and access to these opportunities only happens due to attending state school. DS's friend is learning a musical instrument at secondary school, he pays zero due to FSM entitlement, we pay £100. He is going on various camping trips over the summer in relation to his FSM status at the school. There is lots of stereotyping here, he has loads of books in the house. his brother is at Cambridge. My DD's friend owns the local independent bakery, they are not professionals but they really value education and she does 20 mins of maths every morning. I am wondering why people are resorting to stereotypes when describing the social integration in state schools. We are middle class in terms of jobs, education, we are nearly on a £100000 a year but have no savings, have no windfall property as early 40s and a bit young, had our first child (in London professional jobs) very young, mid to late 20s, everyone shocked in our respective offices when we announced the news. People don't live by these stereotypes, these neat pigeon holes to make an argument stick. This is why many people on here sound like they have zero experience of state schools as at secondary school especially, you only meet the staff once a year in the school your children attend, let alone being able to socially engineer their friendships!

The poster has told you again, again, that they are referring to the ethics of what the private schools are doing (not doing) to maintain their charitable status, it is pretty obvious they understand the law.

Sorry but what is “unethical” for meeting the criteria for what a charity is and acting in accordance with the law applicable to charities? What’s being said makes no sense. The law defines what different legal entities are and what the requirements applicable to them are. Nothing else.

What she means is she’s in a snit about what the law is. Fair enough, but tell us how it should change. Then we can see if we agree.

My daughter went to a very ordinary state primary school before her secondary school. It was great in some ways and severely lacking in others.

While some low cost schemes are available, the fact is that children aren't routinely offered these opportunities to a sufficiently high level in state schools and parents who aren't confident fail to pick up the opportunities that are offered. And sometimes it's cost, in fact often. A school may think that a £2 charge is low cost but it can still take it out of the budget for a family that is struggling.

Being in a social group where working hard and getting good results, aspiring to good jobs, is really vital to social mobility.

It is. But all the children I mentioned above are almost certainly in low-attaining/bottom sets in their secondary schools. They are not getting much if any exposure to a social group that values working hard and getting good results. And the idea that somehow middle class children can provide this for children in more difficult circumstances is just as patronising as the idea that working class children can maybe provide free life experience for the children of middle class professionals whose parents have sent them to a comprehensive.