If you dc is at a private school, do you genuinely think…

[Palmollive]

That they are happier because of it?

I don’t care about exam results or what job dd will get etc. I just want her to be as happy as possible. Would private be more likely to achieve that than state?

DD had a tough time with MH issues in sixth form at a private school. Part of that was tied up with a toxic friendship group with lots of peer-pressure to be high achievers. But the two subjects she enjoyed most at A-level are not offered by any state school nearby. For students who enjoy their studies (!), subject choice is a big thing, and that could go either way between state and private.

No, the state schools around me are great. I think some people are vocal because they've had a bad experience with a particular state school, but it's also similar to how people who home educate their children talk about schools including private schools as terrible places - if you put time and money into doing something, your need to believe it's worth it, so you are invested in your choice being the best one.

I heard terrible things about state schools when DC1 was a baby, and I was fully prepared to home educate her or to live off DH's salary and spend all my earnings on school fees. But then I went to have a look at my nearest primary school, just so that I could say I'd looked, and it was amazing. The staff were incredibly well qualified, and let their previous careers or outside interest add to their teaching - some worked part time in the school in order to free up time for their own music/art etc. Staff retention was very high. There was a wealth of lunchtime and after-school activities. The parents came from many countries and many backgrounds, from refugees and long term unemployed to senior professionals who had been educated at top public schools and were looking for an alternative for their children. There was a huge sense of community and support and inclusion with lots of opportunities for parents to get involved. SEN support was excellent.

The secondary schools are less nurturing, but are also excellent schools. My children are still in their school years, but the older children of friends have mostly done extremely well, going to top universities in the UK and abroad, playing sport at an elite level etc.

There are areas where I think the schools could improve. I'm not impressed with the language teaching at the DC's schools, but I don't know if that is specific to their school, to state schools or to English schools in general.

Of the local independent schools, there are several I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, a couple that are great schools and a couple that are objectively good but would would be a bad fit for my children. And the same goes for the state schools. For DD, one of the private schools might have given her a slightly better school experience for years 7-11, but the state options were better than the independent ones for early years, primary and sixth form, and the independent school certainly weren't £20,000 a year better than state. DS is the sort of child who would do well anywhere, and is thriving at his comprehensive.

My city does have atypically good state schools, so I'm not experienced in the worst short of state schools, and I absolutely believe that private schools can be the best choice for some families. But I find on Mumsnet that people talk on threads like this about the horrors of state schools, but when I look for threads about which local private schools to choose, they are full of stories of bullying, safeguarding failures, incompetent management and failure to meet the needs of SEND pupils.

the older children of friends have mostly done extremely well, going to top universities in the UK and abroad, playing sport at an elite level etc

That's not usual where I live. You might get the odd elite sportsperson at a state 6th form but it's really unusual. Ditto "top universities abroad".

Just shows how different state education is in different parts/demographics.

Yeah. To be fair there only two top athletes and three doing undergrad abroad, but lots of people I know have kids at Oxbridge.or medical school and Russell Group is pretty standard. My social circle is generally very well-educated but ranges in income from living on disability benefits to senior professional married to someone with a much less well-paid job. The couples where both are high earners don't have kids. The people I know who are surgeons/barristers/very senior academics/cyber security consultants and so on all send their kids to state schools, but now I come to think about it, I met quite a lot of them through school/children's activities, so that's not really a representative sample.

How or why is being an "elite sport person" somehow shorthand for the pinnacle of ambition anyway? It's not a life I would wish for my children, having seen a couple of friends do it.

Likewise going to university abroad

Some of the most successful people I know either didn't go to university or went to very mediocre (by MN standards) UK universities. That's if we are measuring success by wealth of course.

• If you genuinely believe that spending earned income on school fees over other luxuries demonstrates any sort of superiority, you know little about class politics yourself.

FYI the children who go to prep school with mine are all working or middle class with two parents working (usually both full time). We are ethnic minority immigrants who chose the school because they guaranteed care from 7.30am to 6pm - something no state school here offers. I am yet to come across a single person who believes their child is superior just because they pay fees*

The argument that going to private school doesn't tell kids that they are 'better' than others is nonsense.

If parents didn't think it was better they wouldn't pay for it! Kids pick up on this - they're not stupid.

And the idea that any kids in private school are working class is also nonsense.

It is perpetuating inequality. If all kids had to go to state school, state schools would be a hell of a lot better as the rich couldn't opt out.

Bedales was amazing for my dyslexic son and he loved it. He’s now at a great drama school. Well worth it. He couldn’t succeed otherwise and it wore him down.

Your last paragraph is oft repeated nonsense. Not sure who you classify as "the rich" but most well of people already do exactly as you say...they move into the catchment of a great school with a half a million pound plus mortgage. That school is a great school because the kids that go there largely come from educated, motivated parents and homes so it's a self perpetuating cycle. If you were able to abolish private schools you'd simply increase this effect. Unless you were prepared to socially engineer school populations to be a completely random mix of demographics with a transport system to support it, abolishing private would to zip to magically improve state schools.

The biggest barrier to school improvement/ environment is the behaviour and disaffection of the children. Not money, staff ratios or facilities. Those things would of course make big differences but if the pupils through the door are coming from hugely disadvantaged, or violent, or abusive homes then learning won't happen. "The rich" will not send their kids to a school in that kind of catchment unless forced too which I can't see anyone voting for.

If all kids had to go to state school, state schools would be a hell of a lot better as the rich couldn't opt out.

Of course they could opt out. They could choose to move abroad for example (as many are currently doing).

Also, there are “working class” children in private schools. It’s not unusual for 20% to be on means tested bursaries.

Unless you were prepared to socially engineer school populations to be a completely random mix of demographics with a transport system to support it, abolishing private would to zip to magically improve state schools

can you imagine it? Utter carnage as parents get their kids to school on the opposite side of town to where they live. Very bad for the environment.

If all kids had to go to state school, state schools would be a hell of a lot better as the rich couldn't opt out

this always makes me laugh. It’s almost as if people believe ‘the rich’ would just give the state school the money they would have spent on fees. Or like ‘the rich’ magically have some kind of magical powers that would increase school budgets and work general miracles,

All that will happen is that ‘the rich’ have more money to spend on extra curricula activities, holidays and all kinds of enrichment activities which secure their children’s grades and by default, futures. They will still use their contacts, nepotism will still exist etc etc etc. More rich people in state schools will make zero difference to most children’s outcomes.

@notbelieved exactly. And the social engineering thing obviously wouldn't happen..it would be carnage as you say. But unless you break the link between geographical catchment and wealth you will never have all schools being equally good, safe learning environments. Even if you could replicate exactly all other aspects, a school full of well cared for, well parented, aspirational and respectful kids is going to do better than a school full of kids struggling with myriad social problems. Tinkering about with school policy will do nothing to address this and no government has the balls to say it, let alone address it.

@notbelieved ,

‘this always makes me laugh. It’s almost as if people believe ‘the rich’ would just give the state school the money they would have spent on fees. Or like ‘the rich’ magically have some kind of magical powers that would increase school budgets and work general miracles,’

It is partially true though.

Plenty give lots of additional money to the private schools, above and beyond fees. That would certainly be available to any state school they chose for their child.

It is true, though, that short of bussing, it wouldn’t help schools in deprived areas directly.

But it is also true that having some of the richest and most influential totally disinterested (and, for the majority, uninterested) in state schooling in this country is not a good thing.

I don’t think it would either be desirable or possible to ban private schooling but to pretend this wouldn’t have a positive effect on the state sector is disingenuous.

We’re having a dilemma about value of private versus state and keep going round in circles about what’s best.

we’re at a lovely state primary and my eldest has been very unhappy at times due to the behaviour of a lot of the boys- at worst end aggression but also lots of low level disruption, talking over the girls etc. she’d absolutely love an all girls school as things stand.

What I’m balancing is selective all girls schools with all the shiny facilities but tight family finances and pressure to continue working stressful jobs versus fairly gritty mixed comp, being able to do luxury holidays, all the activities she’d want and a financial buffer- probably being able to give substantial house deposits etc. I'm really torn over what option would make everyone happier.

@Newbutoldfather you are making a massive assumption that the wealthy displaced families would gladly hand over tens of thousands. They do it for private schools because it's their Alma mater, or a long standing family connection. Even leaving aside the huge legal barriers to dismantling the private sector, the people you're counting on to prop up the State sector would be so massively pissed off it's the last thing they'd do. All that would happen is you'd have enclaves of private wealth, around X school and THAT school might very quickly resemble a private but would be totally inaccessible to anyone who couldn't afford the catchment so you have the same inequality.

These wealthy parents are simply not going to send their kids to a huge comp surrounded by a sink estate with associated problems and pour money into it. They're just not. And why should they? It's not their job. By all means bring in more aggressive taxation to all in the top whatever % of earnings and use that across the sector but imagining that individual donors are going to pay for a new classroom block in a state school is unrealistic and actually really depressing....are we now at a point where, like food banks, our government is just giving up and expecting charities or benefactors to do their job?

My totally average state primary kid did bang average in her SATS, was in 3rd sets at her state secondary. Moved her to a shiny private in year 9 and she's just got 2 x A star and A in her A levels and an A in her EPQ. Friends of hers who were in top sets at state got BBB and AAB. So to me that's value for money, noone will ever be able to take those grades away from her.

@Bunnycat101 - I find this so strange that you don’t have several options! I am in London and we get choice, single sex comp, single sex grammar, all girls Catholic comp, various co-ed options, co-ed grammar etc. Even within the comps, massive differences in how they set/some pretty much stream in most subjects. What you don’t want is mixed ability across the board in a deprived comp because so much teaching time is lost to low level disruption. But you can have an equally deprived fully streamed comp where the higher achievers are fine and prioritised, because the school is so desperate to keep attracting at least some high achievers.

DD would probably say she’s happy at school (private) despite it not because of it as it is pretty strict and she dances to her own tune a bit and often gets told off.
On the other hand she has great friends, access to loads of sport (including Saturdays so it keeps her out of trouble mainly!) and a calm learning environment. So she may dislike the strictness but she probably benefits from it more overall than she realises.
At the same school DS is a real rule-abider and likes routine so for him the strictness is not an issue. I would say he also likes school for different reasons to DD. He is quite academic but can be lazy so for him being pushed is a good thing.
I do worry they can be a bit spoon-fed at private and the days are pretty long - but overall I would say it has worked well and mine are both happy there.

"I aM in loNDoN"

@Araminta1003 really not much choice at all unless I move or pay for private. We’ve got some of the best private schools in the country near me and some great state schools but the catchments are tiny and we’ve got no hope unless we move house. We’ve also missed the boat to fake catholicism- to go down that route it needs to be done before primary . Worse thing is we’re not even guaranteed the comp I don’t like as on the edge for distance so god knows where we’d get in if we don’t- likely somewhere totally shit and far away.

@Kiuyni you seem to always knock down any state school achievement because you personally didn't have a good experience. Ok, your DD massively benefitted from the move to PS which is great, but just accept that others in state can do well and also get As. You seem to be very dismissive that there are actually really good state schools out there, and they do exist in London as PP described and I am also in London.

@Kiuyni

@Kiuyni

@RhaenysRocks it's not about direct giving of money to schools, it's about society wanting schools to be well funded and for that to be a priority policy. With a two tier system there are parents and voters who actually want crap state schools to make themselves feel better about their wealth and choices so it makes it harder to have that investment.

I am not in London. State schools here are done by catchment. If your local state is crap, it doesn't really help to know that there are some great state schools in London. Can you not accept that not all state schools are decent?

Where I am in London there's very little choice as whatever choice you make, you tend to be allocated according to distance from schools, and the choice is between pretty dismal options.