What advantages does private school bring you?

[GeorgianMumto5]

Genuine question which, I'm sure, has been done to death. Dd has a small chance of a place at a fee-paying secondary, which is something we'd never previously considered, but now it's sort of cropped up, I feel duty-bound to give it some proper thought.

I know the classes are smaller, they are selective (I am uneasy about that) and they often provide more opportunities to engage in sport and music. Anything else I should consider?

For background, dd is bright, bit of an all-rounder, conscientious, friendly, well-liked without being in the 'in-crowd', resilient, eager, funny...all qualities that I think will help her to thrive in any setting. Oh yeah, and she'll already know kids at either of the two state secondaries we're considering, or the fee-paying secondary and she gets on with all of them - seeks out their company and they hers, etc.

I think I have tremendous guilt about even considering private. Please feel free to tell me I either should/shouldn't or to simply get over myself. Thank you.

[Tasmania]

I think you have the moral obligation to do the best for your child - and that includes sending him/her to the best school possible, which may at times include paying fees (if you can afford to do so).

That's where morals come in, really...

[lljkk]

That must explain why my step-sis got her mother (ie my dad) to pay for my nephew's education. It was her moral duty to ensure the very best for her son.

Whereas my 4 DC go to mediocre state schools.
I think there's some complicated morality going on there, for sure!!

[rabbitstew]

I think some people get confused between doing their best for their children and getting "the best" for them.

[GeorgianMumto5]

That's a good point, rabbitstew. I'm still not clear on which is best for dd but then, to be fair, I'm still not actually sure which are even genuine options for her.

[rabbitstew]

Just try not to make your decision on "moral" grounds or it all becomes too confusing!

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Can't believe no-one has mentioned the main advantages I noticed in the privately schooled I met at uni:

• the ability to eat huge amounts of revolting canteen stodge without batting an eyelid;
  

• the ability to wear a three piece suit in the tropics without breaking a sweat (disclaimer: girls' schools may not teach that one). Won't someone think of the Empire!?

[LadyMaryQuiteContrary]

I enjoyed the 'delightful' food at ds's prep for a week; dry pasta and home made chicken nuggets. Poor lad didn't start putting on weight until after he left. Uniform was cute; peaked cap, wool blazer, jumper, shirt, tie... and bermuda shorts with long socks, even in the winter.

[Plonkysaurus]

Hmm I've not had to think about this as ds is 19 weeks. However, I was privately educated from the age of three and attended three different schools.

I had no say where I went. My independent high schoo' was fabulous - tiny classes, exceptional teachers, not at all selective just very arty farty. I got 11 gcses A*-C. They had no 6th form so I attended an 'outstanding' GDST school for sixth form. The transition was shocking. All my friends went elsewhere, and I was suddenly not a big fish in a small pond. I failed one of my a-levels, leaving sixth form with modest prospects and my self esteem at rock bottom. The same sixth for set my sister up very well, but she had been at that school since year 7.

My parents are very working class and had no clue what a struggle I was going through, and I was a latch key kid from the age of 14 so they could afford our fees.

I did somehow go on to get a masters but feel this has absolutely nothing to do with how I felt at sixth form, rather that excellent teachers had shown me what I could achieve from an early age.

OP I'm not saying this to be all 'woe is me' but to provide some balance and make you aware of what pressure can do to high achieving individuals. I rebelled against a school I found oppressive and out dated. It had excellent facilities and routinely got 10+ girls every year into Oxford and Cambridge but it was beyond me.

[Tasmania]

lljjkk - sorry, but having four kids probably threw a spanner in the works for you. We can afford sending one or two to private school and still have nice holidays but NOT four...

I do personally think that if you find a school that would be the best fit for your child, you should send him/her there. But as I said, that may end up being a fee-paying school...

Anyway... main advantages of private schools are:

• small class sizes;
  
• can exclude disruptive kids;
  
• loads of sports / extracurricular, so they WILL find something your child is good at;
  
• often, they have nice grounds; going to school in a place that looks nice is quite motivational

[Xenia]

I only raised the moral good of paying for school fees because state schoolers seem to think they occupy some moral high ground. Best to leave morals out of it and pick the best school for your child.
however it is a point for our teenage girls - they may well want to fund 5 children through private schools from 3 - 18 as I have done and if they do then they need to be guided into high paid careers when they suggest they want to do something that is not as likely to make them able to achieve that aim.

Anyway no one is saying all state schools are bad or all private good. If possible pick academic schools in the top 50 in the country whether state or private and you cannot go too wrong with a reasonably bright child.

[GeorgianMumto5]

Xenia, I think you make a good point about opting for a high-paid career if you want the funds to carry our expensive ambitions. I also think there is nothing wrong with that. Luck comes into it too though. Whatever decisions I made as a young woman, today I'd still be contributing a paltry amount to the family purse through my low-paid part-time job because no decision could have prevented me from developing a long-term incurable disease, which requires careful lifestyle choices to keep me out there and working at all. (Not to mention alive.)

I'm not complaining - I enjoy my life - but there it is.

There are moral arguments but rabbitstew is right - you can't base your decision upon them. Unless you are a Labour MP.

[Xenia]

I know. It's not easy and plenty of very hard workers do not earn much. I do appreciate that although you can plan from your teens work which tends to be better paid, not socialise, work really hard, make sacrifices, not take maternity leaves - www.telegraph.co.uk/women/10192274/Warning-maternity-leave-can-damage-your-career.html We can reap what we sow sometimes, but not always. As my mother always said life is unfair. I suspect the best thing is not to compare yourself to others and just seek internal happiness. Comparisons and keeping up with the Joneses is a route to unhappiness.

( The only reason I mentioned the moral issue is that state school parents can go on about the halo they bear because they have sent their wonderful children to rub off on children of those who cannot afford fees whereas I think the moral good is in relieving the state of educating your children.)

[rabbitstew]

Xenia - it would have been far better to leave out that last paragraph... there is no way you are ever going to convince anyone that you sent your children to private school because you wanted to relieve the state of a burden.

[LadyMaryQuiteContrary]

I can see Xenia's point. A lot of parents will move or 'convert' their faith in order to get their child into an outstanding school. Moving into the catchment can often cost thousands so families who are less well off can't do this, it's selective schooling by being able to pay for a house!

Pretending to be a certain faith is just wrong IMO. I have a friend who sent her son to a catholic school despite never setting foot inside a church! Parents who are able to pay school fees get a great deal of stick on here but people don't remember that all state provision isn't the same across the UK. I suppose it is good that those who can pay do as it frees up their child's state school place for someone else.

[Xenia]

Yes, that was the only point I was trying make on the moral issues.
On the why I send them that does not really even feature on my own list as the reason - for the good of other citizens less fortunate than I am. It is more for the other reasons people have put on the thread.

[bulletpoint]

Private schooling has allowed my dc to be introduced to extra curricular activities the type i would never had had the inclination to introduce them to.

[nlondondad]

interesting how this thread moved: the question was actually what are the ADVANTAGES of private schooling (over state schooling), but the OP also introduced other considerations by mentioning guilt...

To start with I would remind people that just because a school is either private or state does not mean it is superior or inferior. There are excellent state schools and poor private schools, and overriding that the school right for your child....

However to generalise:

1. Private schools have significantly more money, which is why the fees so large. This money, if managed wisely, goes through into better facilities and smaller class size. It MAY also go through into better teaching. Advantage.
   

1. In London, private schools are in general selective, while state schools, in general, are not. (So is selective "right" for your child? Well if they do not get in, perhaps not.) Could be an advantage, for the individual child anyway.
   

1. Because they charge fees, and hefty amounts of money at that, the lower income distribution of society not present. Some think this a regrettable side effect. (Hence schools like St Pauls boys school who have said they want to work towards "needs blind" admission where there is enough money in a bursary fund that the school can just decide who to admit ignoring ability to pay, and then sort out the required bursaries later.) Others see that as a positive advantage.....
   

1. Education, to the great disadvantage of everyone, highly politicised in this country. Send your child to a fee paying school and you are instantly labelled, as to a degree is your child. Depends on you whether you think it a disadvantage. Helps if you have not made the mistake of pontificating about other people sending their children to fee paying schools, See Diane Abbott MP for an example of this...
   

My daughter went to Parliament Hill in Camden, and reported how at University this gave her ENORMOUS street cred, cos she had been to an "inner city comprehensive."

[Somethingyesterday]

nlondondad Actually I think the OP was asking a more subtle question than the one you have chosen to answer. I should imagine she already knows "all that" but is really looking for the magic ingredient - the unspoken thing that would make the choice of private school imperative and thus absolve her of nagging feelings of guilt.

And early on in the thread people were saying that essentially the magic ingredient is the "thing that happens when the best school for the child meets the best child for the school." And that that could be any school. (And essentially you only have to pop across to the "withdrawal from RE and assembly" thread to realise that there is no advantage whatsoever in a disastrous or ill-fitting choice of fee paying school.)

I have to say I am finding this thread difficult to navigate. You are the second person to use the word pontificate; whereas I am pretty sure that people generally speak and act with the very best of intentions.

[motherinferior]

Nah, loads of them pontificate. Especially about education. On both sides. Masses of pontification going on.

[GeorgianMumto5]

I've been known to pontificate. Don't think I've done on here.

I think I might have 'done a Diane Abbott' in the past, maybe. Oh well, am a nobody, hopefully people can just laugh at my folly.

I'm no longer sure what my exact intentions were, especially as I just nodded sagely to nlondondad and Somethingyesterday.

[Somethingyesterday]

But motherinferior surely, surely you would concede that Diane Abbott could and can only act in response to her own lived (rather than anecdotal) experience and anticipation of what the future might hold for her own Dc?

I wonder if the OP had that particular parent in mind?

I should imagine Diane Abbott saw a yawning chasm between one future and a possible other for her child. I guess the OP's problem is that her child is not in that position. There's no bad future awaiting her if she doesn't go to a fee paying school.

[Somethingyesterday]

X post! Thank you for the nod OP.

[Isatdownandwept]

If I could pontificate for a moment, the advantages I value most are that my DCs think studying and being good at academic stuff is cool, and that there are no boundaries to my schools ambitions for them.

All the rest is just icing. But these two stick with me as they are so clearly different from the experiences close family members are having with their own children at state school in comparison. There are other huge advantages another how my sons SN needs are being met but that's it relevant to the OP.

Saying that I endorse the view that (a) it totally depends on the school and sending a child to a crap private is just daft, and (b) supportive parents can usually do more than any school to bolster their kids self esteem and broaden their horizons (but I say 'usually' deliberately :- there are many studies that show the enormous strength of the impact of peer pressure on children's attainment relative to their intellectual capability, and some of them are hair raising).

[motherinferior]

I wasn't talking about Diane Abbott. I was saying lots of people pontificate about schools. And going back to my point above, loads of people pontificate about the Fabulous SocioEthnic Mix provided by fee-paying schools and how this is actually wider than at state schools. (Usually then invoking the Leafy Comp stereotype to cover themselves, as even they wouldn't claim that the mix is greater than that at, just for instance, my daughter's comprehensive. She has poor people and black people and all in her class .)