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

We have debated that study a good few times on other threads about the wrong data used etc. I think it is debatable that private school pupils do worse at university but certainly don't mind if people think private school pupils do worse that state schoolers. That does not mean I only paid for contacts and connections - I am not sure fairly ordinary day schools for girls etc tend to have a lot of you will get so many job offers because XYZ was in your class. It just doesn't work like that eg in law, my profession, the vacation schemes last 1 or 2 weeks and are paid.

I regard the VAT issue as a bit of a non issue as I don't think Labour can add VAT easily without adding it to university fees paid by state schoolers and to tutoring and if it is instead a new kind of tax on those schools parents will just stump up and pay it and schools can cease to offer bursaries etc. it is easily dealt with.

Also if private schoolers do worse at university then surely state schooler parents are delighted and happy children go private so classes are a bit smaller than they would be were 500k private schoolers clogging up class rooms and state schooler parents get the benefit of tyhe superior state education and their children continue to do better than private schoolers therefore state schooler parents should be happy as larry rather than zealous as hell or morally outraged parents are allowed to pay.

On this question to me " @Xenia -would you have been able to afford 5 sets of fees and a house where you live in today’’s climate? Would you have earned enough? Things have again, moved on massively in this regard."

Lawyers earn more, not less, than I did in my day. If we apply inflation to my first 6250 salary that would be about 20k today and those trainee lawyers get double that in real terms 40k. Starting salaries are proportionately higher in my job too once you qualify. I imagine wages are higher because of student loans and high rents. I never paid 5 sets at once so had 2 sets for quite a lot of years to about when my oldest son was about 12 as he was at his father's prep school and we just paid 15% of fees there as his father was a teacher there. Then yes 3 sets but oldest was nearly 18 soon after. Then twins were 10 years after youngest of the first 3 so it was all kind of spread out. In fact 2024 is 40 years since I had my first and since the expenses started 1984 first year of childcare for new baby (2 weeks old) which took 50% of each of our full time salaries. I don't really want to say too much about my children who have children but the school age ones are in private schools from age 4 like mine were (and all their cousins on my side) and like I and my siblings were. However there is no rule the family that anyone has to do the same. I have absolutely no problem if any of my 5 decide to pick state schools or educate them at home or find a religious school or whatever else they want.

one difference I did notice was my daughters; univesrity fees were 1k a year, my son £3k but the twins £9250 each (rents were very similar) so that was about 50% more for the youngest children. however by then I "just" had 2 not 5 children to keep so it worked out okay. End of this year is when I stop paying for children - so will have been almost 40 y ears and nothing else I really wanted to spend any money on so have been very happy with my choices and have been able to help all 5 buy a property too. My work is nearly done.....

I was lectured thusly for sending my son with autism, adhd and learning difficulties caused by a birth injury and lack of oxygen to a private school that provided exceptional SEN provision. Lectured by my cousin who is a highly paid senior manager and who roundly criticised me for my principles.

I am way way way too nice to point out to her that she played catchment area monopoly in order to get her older DC into a decent state school. I can't see how that is apparently more principled, but anyway.

I am very happy with our decision. Ds1 is most unlikely to ever go to university. If he completes A levels we will be surprised. But the school is non-selective and is hugely focused on pastoral care and bringing out thr best in every child. It is most certainly bringing out the best in him. He has started to grow in confidence and the very personal care and attention he gets from the staff when he finding things desperately difficult has moved me to tears on more than one occasion. I spent too long feeling like I should apologise for my choice. I say stuff that. I am lucky that I CAN afford to do the best for my child. I know how lucky I am. It is going some way to mitigate some truly shit care at his birth where quite frankly he should never have been in the situation he is in.

RiseYpres
Hearing stories like yours, along with many others, was how I came to the conclusion that the "I'm moral and principled for teaching state, and parents who privately educate their children are only interested in privilege and connections" opinion I'd previously held was highly foolish.

Now I think anyone banging on about how pure their principles are should walk a mile in someone else's shoes before deciding they are the pure good guys.

It's the sweeping statements that annoy me @LolaSmiles Only interested in connections. Nup. Rich bastard parents- Not always. (Ds1's best friend's mother is SAHM and father is a taxi driver. Many many have Gps who pay for the fees or part of the fees for whatever reason). Our school has a whopping % of students who have SEN in it. Many of whom simply could not have their needs met in some of the state schools (I am sure not due to lack of interest or ability of the school- but just due to sheer pressures that state schools can be under). DS1 has had a bloody awful hand dealt to him and has frankly been cheated from the life he ought to have had. I can't do anything about that now though.

I had always assumed that we would educate through the state system and fill in any gaps with tutoring and opportunities etc. That was until our actual living day to day reality hit us in the face. But I still maintain that we are lucky that we had the ability to choose. I don't take that for granted. It is and was a blessing for us.

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?

Op this was your original post. The last sentence implies you wanted a discussion about it but reading your consequent posts you just wanted to have a go at parents who educate their children privately.
Next time you start a thread about private versus state education why not just head it:

God, posh people are ghastly and those that use private education are even worse. AIBU?

Well, no they aren't 😂you've found one online report by some challenging some aspects of HEFCEs original analysis.
HEFCE and other research still argue thar state school children do better at university, when other factors are controlled for.

At this point by continually refusing to accept that the research does in fact show that, you are just looking like you have an agenda.

Pointing out the flaws in your argument is not a "pissing contest".

Taxing schools will be a tax against the rich, not the middle class. Most middle class parents can't afford private school. The money raised (£1.5bn according to labour) could be used for far better things than educating children who already have the best prospects in life by dint of the family they were born into

Aren’t you in that bracket?

Seems like a lot of we’re ok but others can pay more.

Yes I'm in the bracket that could go private. But don't. Even if I did, my opinions wouldn't change. We don't have enough money as a country to target tax breaks to the rich while public services crumble

“Taxing schools will be a tax against the rich, not the middle class. Most middle class parents can't afford private school. “

That does not apply to London. It is the working professional classes. But hey-ho, the rest of the country always expects them to pay for everyone else anyway. I wonder how much longer you are going to keep milking that horse… not much longer I don’t think, as the exodus of the young working professional who just works and pays taxes with not quality of life anymore continues. Too high rents, too high taxes etc - many more countries are now far more attractive to that type.
However, @AdamRyan - you clearly want to be left with a country full of old rich people and poor young people who are not skilled enough to leave.

So happy to push for something not impacting you even though you benefit from inequality generally.

Even with that you’re not focusing on what you can stump up. But others can.

You haven’t pointed out any flaws, you’re merely arguing for the sake of it. Like I said, my points stands, whether you care to accept it or not 🤷🏻‍♀️

The HEFCE embarrassed themselves and tried to downplay it. Once the actual data is examined however, then a different picture becomes apparent. If you have a problem with that than take it up with the University of Birmingham. I’m sure the author or the study will be glad to benefit from your expertise.

Bit out of touch there. London is not all there is to life. I also think we need to stop pandering to Londoners to the detriment of the rest of the UK.

Any rich people who prioritise their income over the greater good are going to do as much as possible to minimise their tax bill anyway. So if they want to leave, meh.

For some reason this thread feels like I'm arguing with a bunch of City boys.

“Any rich people who prioritise their income over the greater good are going to do as much as possible to minimise their tax bill anyway. So if they want to leave, meh.”

Well no, it isn’t ‘meh’. There is a net exodus of millionaires, and this is indeed a problem for the uk. Foot stomping ‘well, we don’t want you anyway’ isn’t going to change the fact it’s a problem, any more than it’s going to offend those leaving.

The wealthy also generate wealth, through employment, spending, etc. There’s a knock on effect that has to be considered. Britain needs to attract wealth, not chase it off. What chasing it off results in is the tax burden increasingly falls on those making less, and ultimately an economic death spiral.

Flaws: 1) multiple research suggests staye school children do better at university, not all based on HEFCE data
2) HEFCE updated the findings and data, but it didn't change the conclusion, suggesting that the transposition error didn't materially change the outcome
3) you haven't provided any evidence that private school children do better that university beyond a few links that don't say what you claim they do.

Therefore you haven't proven your hypothesis that all research showing state school children do better is based on flawed HEFCE data and wrong

And therefore you haven't falsified my hypothesis that state school children are better equipped to learn outside a school environment

Anyway, I'm not replying to you any more. You don't know how to read research or argue a point and I'm not in the market for arguing on ideology rather than fact.

Agree. Not sure how people get to be this removed from reality. ‘Meh’ won’t pay the tax burden.

Although as usual with all these threads more tax is for other people not them.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

What's chased off wealth is brexit and the exodus of financial services to Europe. Fiddling about with private school fees is not going to bring that industry back. But it might raise money for the exchequer.

You think we need to coddle millionaires, I don't. My opinion is equally valid to yours.

Of course you’re not, because there’s nothing to argue. Like I said, take it up with the University of Birmingham.

Oh ok, so private schools do produce advantage then. I mean, you were just saying they didn’t. Any chance of deciding which horse you want to back in this race?

Which increased tax would you like that impacts you op?

Even with a bounty you’d rather suggest others stump up.

Okay hun, whatever you say.

OK hun, does it for me too.

Good luck @AdamRyan. A spirited defence of your position, but I am not convinced that your postcode and school catchment area is going to be detrimental to your DC's life chances ever. Quite certain the little Ryans will make their way to decent universities in the fullness of time.

Blimey OP. You've been at this for days.

Education in the U.K. is a postcode lottery. Good for you if you have a good state option. Would you send your child to your local comp if there has been a recent stabbing? What about a grammar school - would you shun those too out of principle?

Basically, the decisions most of us make for our kids' education are driven by the specific range of local options. If there is a good comp and a 'meh' private school, most people would choose the comp - but if they had a school like Westminster within reach and a very bright child who got in, then they would probably not turn that down. Totally depends. Boarding school is a whole other ballgame again. We would not consider that, personally.

We have put 4 DC through independent schools from age 4. We ourselves come from countries were education was not even universal (DH) and absolutely shite (me). However, my husband has been very successful in business in the U.K. despite his origins. I haven't, but here we are, could be much worse.

What I have noticed in this country is the focus on 'manners' and 'soft skills' in the independent sector. When we visited the local state schools, none if the kids made eye contact when we entered the room or in corridors. It was like they were kind of skulking or shuffling around, smirking. That was the vibe. In the independent schools, they tend to look you in the eye, shake hands, open the door for you and hold a conversation without 'attitude.' Every morning and afternoon they have to shake hands and look the headteacher in the eye and say 'good morning / good afternoon.' Also, they stand when teachers enter the room and this kind of thing. There is no nonsense about not wearing the uniform, or not doing PE because of 'mental health' or a sore finger or whatever and excuses over homework not done or poor behaviour are just not tolerated.

Having said this, mine have attended very different independent secondary schools. One went to a top London Day School. It was very fast-paced and socially quite tough, but very diverse, ethnically and lots on bursaries (about 25% I think). I don't think he had the happiest time there socially, but he was happy being quite average there as he's quite laid back and not bothered about the academic competitiveness. In the end he got into Oxbridge, so all good. Second DS is dyslexic and academic performance 'spiky' and 'average' so he couldn't get into any London schools and had to travel quite far out. This school was supposed to be small and supportive, but turned out to be absolutely shite snd he would probably have received more support in a state school. I had to educate him myself, basically. The school was not worth the bricks it stood in. Anyway, he's got into uni to do 'his passion' but my god, that school was crap. The other two are in an all girls 'super-selective' and this school is fantastic overall. Few iffy, loon teachers but there always are.

Anyway, probably if we lived in the suburbs or outside London our kids might well have gone to the local comp and we'd never have known about selective schools or considered private schools. We're not even British. But actually, many (most?) pupils in London independents have at least one non-British parent. The schools are very international. World away from our educational experiences, but I'm glad they've had opportunities we never had. That's the whole point!

I still don't understand if someone thinks state school children do better at university than private schools why would anyone have a problem with the better off using private schools in effect to damage their children so that the children at state schools benefit from the better education of the state sector. Surely it's win win?

Read the op Xenia. I have no issue what other people do, I have issues with the assumption I'm harming my children for a "purity spiral" and that private schools are benefitting from tax breaks when we are skint