Would you prefer private school?

[Dontbeamenace]

I'm sure I would prefer private school for my children. Would it matter to you if money was no cost?

I was replying to the inference that children at state schools don't enjoy learning or enjoy their childhood. Send them to private if you want but those of us who can't afford do still care about education for our children.

I have to admit to being bemused by a friend sending her child to a fee paying school when the local state schools in close proximity are extremely good. I don't really get it myself.

*My job as a parent is to do everything I can to find my dc an environment where he can learn and enjoy his childhood. Just as most parents will.

I don't see the point in criticising parents who endeavour to do the best for their child, in their specific circumstances.*

Agree with this, MN has a real hatred of private schools..

Agree with this, MN has a real hatred of private schools..

They’re poshos innit.

Agree with this, MN has a real hatred of private schools..

They’re poshos innit.

Sorry for all these double posts.

Some of see our role as human beings and citizens as not furthering inequality, and acting for a fairer future for all children, not just our own.

If you could afford private school but choose not to send kids there it's likely you'll do lots of extra curricular activities anyway.

I get your point but if your only other option is to go to a state school that has major issues with bullying/crime etc and nothing is done about it, those other priorities go out the window. If my child goes through what I did at state school, I’d quite happily give fairness and equality the finger.

You are falling into the trap of assuming that all private schools provide things that all state schools don't and that just isn't true.
My children's primary school has smaller class sizes than the local prep school. Their secondary has overall better facilities and better academic results than either of the independents within realistic travelling distance of our home and a wide range of extracurricular activities. The only major thing that one of the private schools has which our school doesn't is a swimming pool, but a)none of my children are particularly interested in swimming and b)there is a brand new sports centre with a great pool in our nearest town anyway, so that was never a major consideration for us.
There are plenty of other outdoor opportunities and trips at our state school, including skiing. In fact there is a small dry ski slope in the school grounds and the ski trips are quite popular but my kids all have other interests and have never wanted to go. But there are loads of other clubs and trips that they have participated in.
The money we have saved by not paying school fees has gone into other activities outside of school and towards helping with University costs. For us paying school fees would probably have reduced opportunities for our family. In fact one of the big things that put us off one of the private schools was the number of extra curriculars which were compulsory as they would have interfered with our children's existing hobbies. I didn't want to be paying for them to do things that they didn't want to do whilst simultaneously preventing them from pursuing sports and other activities that they do have an interest in and aptitude for.
Yes, we are fortunate to have very good state provision locally and if we didn't then I almost certainly would have sent them to private schools. I have no criticism of anyone who makes that choice. But it is nonsense to imagine that all state school pupils are deprived of opportunities that private pupils receive as the norm.
I think the reason most people who could afford private education but choose state make that decision is because in their particular circumstances the private option does not represent value for money and they can do as well or better for their children elsewhere. I doubt many parents deliberately choose something suboptimal for their children if they are in the fortunate position to be able to choose.

If the choice is between seeing your child distressed and drowning in a state system or paying for private would you refuse on ethical grounds?

I support the NHS - you better believe if I could I'd pay for private gynaes than wait 8 years to get my daughter diagnosed with endometriosis on the NHS for example. If I could afford it.

Make your own principled stand. Give your children the best you can and teach them morals, don't subject them to yours.

I think foodbanks are immoral, should I stop my direct debit to them?

*the need for foodbanks I should say!

You're mixing up equality with equity.

There is no equality in most state schools for academic, high functioning autistic children like mine.

Class sizes of 29/ 30 and the noise and constant social demands of being in a room all day with that many people are harmful to these children. They might cope, but it is impossible for them to thrive.

I would if local state were not good and I could afford it. There actually aren't any privates where I am but lots of grammars. Dc goes to one.

There are plenty of state schools which are also wealthy bubbles. Having a few children on free school meals in a sea of middle class pupils who live in expensive houses isn't really much different.

Looking at Department of Ed numbers local leafy comp in my area of London has

• half the national % on FSM in the last 6 yrs
• 10% of the national % of SEN
• 60% of the national % of English not as first language

Local non-leafy comp

• 1.5x the national % on FSM in the last 6 yrs
• Just over the national % of SEN
• 4x the national % of English not as first language (over half the school)

Local even-less-leafy comps

• nearly 2x the national % on FSM in the last 6 yrs
• Just over the national % of SEN
• 4x the national % of English not as first language (over half the school)

So between the leafy comp and the even-less-leafy comps there is a massive difference in the cohort

• 4x the % of children on FSM in the last 6 yrs
• 10x the % of SEN
• 5x the % of English not as first language (over half the school cohort for these schools)

This is just one London borough I'm sure this pattern is repeated in many places in the country. I'm not denying that private schools are economically segregated but so are state schools. Sending a child to a leafy comp or a grammar school is not necessarily giving them a much broader view of the world, it really depends on the school.

I think this is the reality for most people. If you have money, or the opportunity to earn it, you have choice and that is always an advantage.
I don't kid myself that my decision to use our local very good state provision is in any way the same as the parents in our nearest city who are sending their children to failing schools. And even if I did send my children there they would still be advantaged because of their home circumstances, the education that DH and I have had and so on.
I have tried to bring them up with an understanding of their privilege and hope they are growing into decent adults who will use the advantages they have had wisely. But it is undeniable that our income has bought them advantages and the fact that it is not via the route of private education doesn't make us morally superior.

This is a really good point. I was also happy to give fairness and equality the finger when I had to pay for private physio for my 1 year old to help him walk because the NHS was inadequate. I’ll also evaluate things when my son gets to secondary school age if the state option isn’t good enough.

If people have the available funds, and were being disadvantaged by the state/NHS/insert free service, surely post parents would help their children.

Some of see our role as human beings and citizens as not furthering inequality, and acting for a fairer future for all children, not just our own.

In principle lovely idea but I'm not throwing my own child under the bus to make a point and hoping that my great-grandchildren may then enjoy better state schools.

It would be really interesting to see what would happen to state schools if private schools were scrapped. I think we’d see a lot more of a backlash against the appalling standards of state schooling (at least here in Scotland) and legal action taken against schools where violent kids are left to roam unchallenged. When the local KC’s kids are hospitalised through bullying the legal threats would start and action would perhaps finally be take to remove disruptive pupils to a suitable provision. It’s like if private hospitals were banned and a multimillionaire had to wait 5 years in immense pain for a hip replacement, perhaps there would be a more consistent outcry against underfundjngvthe NHS.

We probably could afford it (would need to downsize/cut back on holidays). But DS’s state school is really excellent: they learn Spanish from reception, an instrument from year 2 (all free), have a wide range of afterschool sports, excellent dance and drama provision (every class does a performance every term). Lots of trips and enrichment. Small class sizes - 22 per class, with both a teacher and TA in the classroom (thank you parents who left London during the pandemic). And DS is doing well academically, so doesn’t need hothousing - I’d rather he was having fun and making friends with no pressure to excel academically.

From what I know - there are parents with bags of cash who can afford it either way and will always go to private.

There are parents who stretch financially for one of two reasons - their children struggle socially or educationally. These parents are active and engaged and when Labour pushes them from private to state by increasing fees 20% - they are going to HOOVER up school's time and energy.

They will afford EHCPS, solicitors, write to governors, have after school meetings. They're going to be demanding. Pushy.

They'll jump waitlists and soak up time that wont be given to children who's parents are not involved. Vulnerable children without pushy parents will undoubtedly get worse. They're going to know their children's rights, they're going to demand their kids get what they need.

Their EHCPS will cost the state system thousands and thousands. They will get transport to schools miles away.

I know thats what I will do if/when private is made unaffordable.

There seems to be a misconception on here that state educated people are 2nd class citizens!

Our local comp has ski trips, lots of extra curricular activities, the opportunity to go and volunteer in Nepal to name but a few things!

Even if I had the money (we have a decent income but have 5 children) I would stick with state. I truly believe they would not lose out going to a state school.

Interesting thread. One of our DC got into a local academic private school, part scholarship and part us paying. other DC very happy at good comprehensive. Both did well. In short do whatever is best for your personal circumstances IMV. I do come across a number of parents who say no, I would never send my kids to private schools on moral grounds... but then move house to get into the right catchment area for the best state school.