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

State schools are a hit and miss.My local state have class ratios similar to private schools and have excellent provisions while travel few miles down the road, you will see a different story. In the same way the NHS is a postcode lottery. Shall we blame private hospitals for the downfall of some NHS hospitals? Meh…

Such tedious virtue signalling! And it is virtue signalling.

I imagine it's quite easy if you are in catchment for excellent schools

I really hate the way these threads always bring out the inverted snobbery and allow generalised slagging off of children and adults on the basis of their education as though the anecdotal examples somehow prove a universal truth. So many people imagine all schools are like Eton and all kids coming from them are like Boris Johnson when the vast majority are miles from it. I teach in a (non selective) private and we have lovely, thoughtful, engaged kids. We are not in the south east and they are well aware of social deprivation and their privelege by the time they leave. There's no merit in martyrdom and many of the children I teach would not cope in the large comprehensives near us. The parents are far from super rich in most cases and are simply doing their best for their child, which most parents do, to within whatever means they have. If your kids thrive at a decent state, fantastic, great but I am eternally grateful that I am just about able to keep mine in my school too, as they both were sinking fast out of it.

It's very personal choice, if you live in an area with an outstanding comp (that basically selects by house price), can access a faith or grammar school and have friends in multiple sectors that can provide career advice I think it's a disadvantage to go private. On the other hand if your local comp is in special measures sometimes private is the only option if you don't want to move.

I don't think the comp system really provides a mix of social classes when the catchments are often tiny so you need money to buy or rent a house if you want to get in

@GlassWall I'm not justifying our choices for the simple fact they need no justification; I am merely stating the facts.

As a principle, what you say is correct. I also think it's important that children learn to mix with others across different backgrounds . The reality will be that in some areas the local high school is better than others and that the good/outstanding ones will be oversubscribed.

In my area there are a few selective grammar schools (non-fee paying) which can be applied for across LAs. It's common for parents who are more invested in their child's education to get a tutor in to aid their DC with the 11 plus exam. I remember very naively saying to a woman that I worked with, several years ago, that I didn't believe in this - she pointed out that it was different for my family as all of the high schools in my local town had good reputations, and if she lived where I did, she didn't wouldn't be doing that either .

So yes - I would believe in the principle you state - but if I had concerns about my local school and I could afford to go private then I would put my child's best interests first .

Where do you draw the line, why just schools? Is it unethical you have more resources than others, since you have plenty of money as you say

It’s entirely possible simultaneously to believe that private schools shouldn’t exist because they perpetuate inequality AND to send your child to a private school because that’s the best thing for them.

We instead chose to pay £££ for a house in catchment for some of the best state school in Scotland. Do I feel guilty? Not a bit of it. Do I feel that we should have chosen to live elsewhere so my children could have had a less middle class cohort at school? Again no.

It’s entirely possible simultaneously to believe that private schools shouldn’t exist because they perpetuate inequality AND to send your child to a private school because that’s the best thing for them
This.
We're highly unlikely to ever be able to afford private education, but there's no way I'd be getting tangled up in a left wing purity spiral where I'd give my children a worse set of opportunities in order to maintain the right type of political image.

What amuses me is how many people who claim they'd never choose private education on the principle that it's promoting inequality also seem to mention:

• they bought a house in catchment for the right school
• the state schools near them are good, usually with a catchment where parents value education, are wealthy, or both
• the schools near them aren't in special measures and/or don't have historic issues of poor community engagement with education
• they will be paying for a range of private tutors to give 1-1 support to their DC to top up
• they're also going to pay for a range of sports coaching or music lessons to give their children a broad set of enrichment opportunities

That's before you get to the fact that they often then talk about being able to use the money not from fees to help their DC with a house deposit/ financially support them through university.

But what matters is they apparently really, really, really care about not doing anything that might give their children any advantage, because they're the good guys who hate inequality.

Would you feel.the same if all the local.schools were failing ,with high incidences of bullying and lots of disruptive behavior ?
I could never in a million years afforded to.send my son privately ,but education isn't a level playing field ,there are an awful.lot of really crap.schools its all.vert well saying you want them to.mix with people from.all.walks of life but nobody really wants theirtheir.kids attending really shit schools .

I admire your honesty .

Why so? I think anyone with enough money to use private health care or education or otherwise to decrease the strain on the system ought to do so and should! And in the same way that anyone who could afford to, should have solar panels fitted, heat pumps etc to lessen the impact of climate change. Stop the hate. We all need to do a bit here and there. Her child would have easily taken someone’s place in that very selective state school, but he didn’t, (whatever the reasons were) he freed up a space which could have been otherwise taken by him.

This post👏👏👏👏👏👏
I couldn’t have worded it better.

This is a really interesting perspective i hadn't considered. Although I feel slightly flawed with respect to the NHS as the same doctors do private/NHS work.....

YANBU. We could afford private school (but would require substantial belt tihgtening), but we are happy with the local state school offering and don't want to compromise on lifestyle. The schools are fine, good even, and we think having access to money for clubs, holidays, experiences etc is more beneficial to us as a family than pumping it all into a private school that is, possibly, only marginally better.

Very ìnteresting vote split this morning- 50/50

left wing purity spiral where I'd give my children a worse set of opportunities in order to maintain the right type of political image

This is very rude. I'm not maintaining a "political image" - I just have a different set of values and beliefs. It isn't even really in the minority according to the voting.

That's before you get to the fact that they often then talk about being able to use the money not from fees to help their DC with a house deposit/ financially support them through university.

I'd argue that helping children to buy their own house has significantly more impact on their "opportunities" than private education.

@whumpthereitis I can genuinely say, from very extensive experience, that the large numbers of privately educated men I know are far more likely to live these kinds of lives. They are cushioned by money but money also buys them whatever they want to indulge in. The strange private school bubble they grow up in shapes them to think they are the masters of the universe, who deserve to be on top. I would literally run out of space listing what I have seen over they years - with money acting as a gloss on top.

I’m not saying other people don’t have problems, too, but just responding to the idea that private school in itself is a shortcut to finding a good husband. There are good and bad people wherever you go - but it is rarely discussed that maybe the products of these types of schools are anything other than fantastic. They are categorically not.

Tbh I’m not sure how much you’re going to get out of the poll results, given there’s really too many variables.

There are of course ideologues that wouldn’t educate their children privately no matter what, but there are those that say they wouldn’t because they can’t, and if they could they actually would. There’s also those that say no, safe in the knowledge that their child/ren are at a good state/grammar school.

If the question was ‘where would you send your child/ren if you had to choose between private school and a failing state school?’ then I’d imagine the poll results would be different. Perhaps they wouldn’t be, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect what parents would actually do if they could afford private and found themselves in that situation.

'I say that as someone in their 40s, married to a non privately educated man who I absolutely love, watching friends who married with money in mind go through all kinds of problems.'

@whumpthereitis

You say fiends married to rich men have 'all kinds of problems' - then mention it's because they married for money.
I married for love but to a wealthy man.
I adore him. I've dated plenty of great guys who didn't have money and I'm sorry but I'll pick 'great and rich' every time.

Just because someone married into wealth doesn't mean their husband is a horrible, wife beating womaniser.
A lot of them are handsome, well mannered, romantic, and really value the family unit.

Most people don't have to choose between private and a failing state school though, so that would be a loaded question.

I find it interesting that in an ideal world there's a 50/50 split between would/wouldn't. And also that by even asking the question I'm being called names by the "would" side - clearly it touches a nerve for lots of people who would pay, so they are being defensive

I agree it is always better to marry someone you love who is wealthy too. It makes life easier.

I was also privately educated, as was my husband. Tbh when I was dating I did look for men from a similar background, who could match me financially. I was of course looking for a good man I would fall in love with, but being evenly matched with a shared desire for a lifestyle was also important.

I’ve certainly encountered what you have experienced, but I really didn’t find to be something reserved for the wealthy at all. Some of the most entitled men I’ve come across have in fact come from very poor backgrounds, who were quick to try and latch onto people they perceived to be beneficial to them.

It would be a probing question aimed at determining (as much as possible, anyway) how strongly held someone’s political ideology actually is, when measured against the current and future well-being of their children. It’s easy to stay true to principle when the stakes aren’t high.

I can’t say I’m seeing the would side as being any more defensive than the wouldn’t side tbh.