To think people have the wrong idea about the reason parents use private schools?

[ewloan]

I have found this from threads and in real life, whenever private school comes up there’s this attitude that it’s about ‘buying results’ or ‘if your child is academic they will do well anywhere.’

Do people not realise that most people who send their kids to private school actually don’t need to be thinking about exam results as the main factor? These are people who often own businesses and have huge family wealth so their child’s exam results are not the be all and end all. The main reason people use private schools is for the entirely different experience for the child, for them to enjoy school and learning in small classes with lots of amenities and focus on their development. Why do people seem to think the main reason is to ‘buy an exam result’?

My parents sent me to private school because they didn't want my education disrupted by me moving schools every couple of years once I got to secondary school.

Then you did the right thing, it's important to be able to identify with the values of fellow parents.

Good for you. You have a lovely state school. In my eyes that is the BIGGEST LUXURY of all. I live in one of the most sought after catchments in my part of the country. My child serves 3 years of secondary state schooling. The violence was off the scale. The disruption was daily chair throwing, kids telling the teachers to f-off, kids running off out of class, there were barely any extra curricular activities and kids were getting an endless succession of non-subject specific supply teachers. That’s why we changed our child to private school. The VERY BEST decision we ever made.

I appreciate not everyone can afford to do this. That’s why I think it’s unacceptable for Labour to have decided against increasing VAT / NI / income tax when state schooling in so many areas is a complete and utter piss take. Just think yourself lucky that you seem to have no understanding of quite how unfathomably bad it could be.

As an ex teacher in two London private schools, I can tell you that results are overwhelmingly the reason that they are chosen. The second reason is probably that the parents have never seriously considered the state sector as generations have gone to private school before them and they don’t really see any realistic alternatives.
After that comes the experience, facilities etc.

If you look at most private school websites, results and leavers’ destinations will be among the most prominent attributes. At parents’ evenings, by far the longest discussions are about grades and how to improve them.

Of course, private schools are competitive and, in addition to ‘added value’, they also need to offer co-curricular opportunities and high level music and drama etc. But, if they aren’t getting the results, no matter how good the rest is, they will fail.

OP, you are conflating results and money. Regardless of whether they need the money (and I have taught billionaires’ children), they are aspirational for their children, both for the right reasons, but also because it is yet another feather in their cap if their son or daughter gets a full set of 9s or ends up at a top uni.

These sorts of stories (that you only seem to hear about on MN) are irrelevant to any debate on what benefit private schools bring to a society. And we all know, without question, that this is not why 99.9% of parents use them. The majority of them do not even fulfill their charitable obligations, the majority of them have increased their fees 600% over the last 20 years, way over the line of inflation just to compete on luxuriant facilities for the super wealthy (only sporting and music has been improved, rather than teaching quality or increased offers of scholarships or bursaries). Let’s not pretend, ever, that any purpose of these schools is to ‘save’ children from the state sector.

Plus, why should your children be “saved” purely because you can afford it?

My child has got the top result in every single exam they’ve ever taken, at first from Cambridge and a sports blue.

What kind of school did they go to? Oh yes, a state one.

An old friend of mine went to Eton, and he's a removals man.

When we first met, i said 'i bet your parents were thrilled?!'

And he said that they just want me to be happy.

But, if and when the day comes when he doesn't want to be a removals man any longer - he has plenty of options to choose something else.

@Alfonsoo ,

I am not sure what your son’s success has to do with my post.

I'm a single parent and without the wraparound care and holiday club at my DS' private school I couldn't work (I'm a hospital doctor in the NHS)

Fewer kids, OP.

It doesn't matter why you send your child to private school. Whatever reason, it usually gives your child an unfair advantage
.
Private schools produced most of the conservative cabinet in the last 14 years who have trashed the country

I actually think that paying for all the extra facilities and 'opportunities' at private school is why it feels so selfish and unequal.
All of our kids deserve a good experience of education.

Well economists are equipped to forecast because that's what they do for a living: build forecast models to predict future financial behaviour

But really if you feel like that and there is zero interest why do you come onto all of the threads that are so obviously about private schools?

I suspect you are enjoying the moaning about them which is also fine. But telling people they shouldn't discuss it isn't on. You aren't in control of us.

That is literally exactly what my private school does. It's small, shabby non selective, not in SE, that people on reasonable professional salaries can afford because mortgages are cheaper here. Not much spare to splash about but given the demographics here, the state secondaries are much as the pp described. Mine were subjected to violent bullying before I took the decision to move them. I'm in debt to do so. I am just as fed up with ignorant, uninformed opinions about what the private sector and it's users are as other posters are with "whinging poshos."

I don't give a crap about connections, smart facilities, or results actually. Mine are not high fliers. But as they have mild SEN and one now is completely paranoid and traumatised if anyone so much as looks his way, you're bloody right I will do all I can to have them not mix with the kind of kids that put him in that condition. I'm not for a minute suggesting all state schools or kids in them are awful thugs, but to deny that any are, that it's all a made up myth is simply wrong.

@twistyizzy ,

‘Well economists are equipped to forecast because that's what they do for a living: build forecast models to predict future financial behaviour’

Except that their back tested forecasts perform little better than the proverbial simian darts player!

The focus needs to be on making real changes, not trying to force every child to suffer in that system. Let’s do better? Or instead, let’s just opt out? Then it’s just other people’s children who will suffer

I meant no one on this thread.

And how do you know no-one on this thread is an economist?

But how does this policy actually improve anything in the state sector? And please don't tell me 6500 maths teachers. I am a teacher...it's absolutely laughable that anyone believes this can happen. The issues with state education need an investment and long term plan ten times what this is supposedly going to raise. But that's too hard, so this is fine instead as a quick and easy vote winner.

How is my kid not being in that state classroom harming the state sector? How will my kid being put back in help it? I keep hearing the argument that if everyone had to use state there'd be more motivation and pressure to change it, but that makes no sense and is pretty bloody insulting to the 93% of parents who do use state. At a granular level there is not one single way this policy benefits anyone at all. If, in 2/3 years time there actually are 6500 more maths teachers committed and permanently in state schools, I'll come and say I was wrong.

By no one having said that they are, thus far. Please point one out if you see one. My DH on the other hand is an economist and worked for HMRC for 10yrs and sees value in the policy.

People don't generally start a comment by saying "I'm an economist" before getting reply to the OP
Incidentally I'm part of ENT which contains a fair few economists, tax lawyers and HR lawyers. None of them see any value to the policy and the consensus is that is over 10% leave private schools then there will be a net cost to the state. 8-10% leave = net income of between £0-0.5 million. We already look like over 5% will leave and that has increased since Reeves brought the policy forward from Sept 25 to Jan 25.
IFS warned a few weeks ago that Labour were already short of the predicted income and again, that was before the new Jan 25 implementation date.
They now look like they will have to exempt military on top of the exemptions for EHCPs and state boarding. The cost of legal challenges will potentially wipe out any significant income.

I don't expect people to state they are an economist before starting a reply, and anyone with enough sound knowledge is entitled to their opinion on it – as are you. It doesn't even matter if anyone is an economist or not, and that was my entire point – until the policy comes into play it's all just guesswork (be that educated guesswork or armchair guesswork) and no one can say with certainty what exactly will transpire. If anyone is claiming to know exactly what will transpire with certainty, then that's in the realm of delusion.

Beyond the actual outcome, it still doesn't remove its value as a fundamentally fair policy.

So true. I have built such models in my youth and they construct a veneer of sophistication and confidence around a lot of spurious variables for which everyone is guessing the future. Furthermore, economists almost always give a plethora of scenarios and you can choose the one that fits the narrative best. People are very gullible about the power of economics.