If you can afford it, would you send your children to an independent school?

[Fiona2011231]

This is a hypothetical question, and I would greatly appreciate your insight.

My question is based on this assumption: In England, if you want your children to have a better chance in life (great success, joining the elites, etc), a good independent school is a requirement. Of course, few have enough money to afford it.

But suppose you have enough money, would you send your children to an independent school? Or would a grammar or a comprehensive school be good enough?

Thank you.

That's true. I've always said there are a good few private schools around which are worse than good state schools. You need to choose carefully.
However the bottom line is private schools educate 8% of children yet get them 509% of the best university places and then make up some huge percentage of the cabinet, senior board posts, the judiciary etc etc etc. t is a huge advantage those mothers who earn enough to pay school fees can confer on their children (if but only if you think those positions of power and success and money is worth bothering about of course).

Someone above mentioned choice being the main advantage of private schools and that is true. If you are lucky enough as a woman to be able to afford school fees then you can choose if it will be a selective single sex, a free school with few lessons like Summerhill, boarding or day, strict Muslim or atheist, specialist music or whatever if might be. If you are the 92% who cannot afford those choices then you have fewer choices but even so you may have some eg getting aj ob in a private school where the fees are then paid for you or the child getting a bursary or music scholarship or moving to an area with grammar school or state muslim schools or whatever you are after plus always of course home education (again if you can afford the loss of a salary).

Have you got an island at all?

ElizabethJonesMartin

I agree with you and being totally up myself, I'm going to report my first post in this thread .....

"Surely, given the choice, the most important thing is to find somewhere you think your child will be happy, safe and do well. What flavour of school that is doesn't make a jot of difference and what flavour you choose will often be completely different.

People get really hung up on this - I prefer to focus on my kid's welfare and ignore the politics and what works for other parents and other kids."

Oh well, I heard on radio 4 this morning that there is an epidemic of mental health issues in the children of the high achieving rich, possibly linked to the pressure of exceptionally high expectations. And I'm sure those parents think they only want what's best for their kids, too. It's a wise parent who knows what the right balance is and how to achieve it.

Yeah but nothing beats the smugness of sending you kids to the local comp and them doing well - medicine, top Uni's etc . Saved ourselves £100,000's and our kids are quietly smug proud that they haven't needed any help. (i admit our local comp is a decent school) We haven't tutored them either.

We could have easily afforded private education and, to be honest, if I thought my kids needed help then we would have got it for them but I am happy that wasn't necessary. Our local comp is 5 mins walk away - perfect.

I find a lot of private school deliberately promote elitism and are pompous. I want my kids to be proud of their schools but I hate the thought of them being encouraged to think they are better than other people simply because their parents are wealthy. I listened to a speech made by the Headmaster of Harrow at the beginning of term on the recent TV show about the school. It was nauseating and all about promoting the children's feeling of superiority.

TheOriginalSteamingNit

And is nobody else going to comment on ElizabethJonesMartin's assertion that privately educated people get 509% of the best university places?

My first thought as well TOSN,

IAlwaysThought

I think you might be missing the motivation of why many folk do spend that kind of money and some even remortgage their houses to do so - I don't think most people aiming for top (not the mediocre privates and there are a few of those) private /public schools are sending them for mere A* at GCSEs or A level ...a clever child should be able to get those at most schools public or private including a good local comp or grammar (with a bit of extra tuition on the side if they needed it) ...rather it -a notion of all round education that is formative of character etc. rather than teaching to the test - music, extra-curriculars, drama, sport, going beyond the curriculum, well honed social skills, public speaking and something else called leadership and self confidence and some will also not admit it, but it came across strongly in the Harrow programme - the network of well positioned (and often international) peers and alumni. If you go to the top schools you will get a very privileged education during your formative years - how you use it will be up to you but think of meeting speakers that are top of their field, leaders in politics or business, visiting musicians from leading symphony orchestras etc. A full on education with the best sports and music teaching as well as the academics which can be way beyond the curriculum. That is what the major public schools promote as well as a university type education that encourages real thinking (rather than pomposity), a leg up to the top Unis, as their USPs to draw people in to spend 33k plus a year at places like Westminster, Winchester and Eton.

If it was just about exam results, many of the middle classes (than the very wealthy who will always send their children there) would not bother given the money it takes... although it is a given that the top selective private/public schools get many more into Oxbridge/Ivy League than any state schools do. The professions - at least the higher echelons of the professions - be it law, politics, the City, CEOs, media etc. are still heavily dominated by those with that background. Medicine may be different but I'll take a bet that many at the top there are also privately educated. Otherwise organisations like the Sutton Trust would not be highlighting lack of social mobility otherwise.

I am not saying they always deliver what they promise...and there are lazy children who do take not advantage or appreciate of what is on offer but that is what attracts people to them - - so comparing them by simply A levels or what course or uni they end up at is not comparing like for like. I am sure many public school parents (rightly or wrongly) believe they are paying for what they believe will be a different "product" at the end of it than that of a comp or grammar and also not for mere exam results.

509% is indeed an intriguing number.

Also, private islands are not relevant! No need to out anyone. It is nice to get diverse opinions.

I can assure you that many state school parents want - and frequently get - an all round education too.

I'll give you the posh contacts point - not least because it is the old-boy-network to which quite a few of us object.

motherinferior

which state school in your view delivers an equivalent all round (music/sport/academic and the rest) education comparable to likes of a Winchester, Eton or Westminster....if I could find that, I would love to save 300 k+ of prep and public school fees per child, believe me.

There is no old boy net work my DH went to one of those school most on here would associate with "old boys network". it's not made a jot of a difference to him. It's parental connections that are the important network. If you paying £34 000 pa per child in school fees and most people have at least two children then you are pretty wealthy it's highly likely that you have a very well paid job and that most of your friends and colleagues are in a similar position. Therefore when you want work experience for Rupert with a top law firm then you get on the phone to a friend or colleague after all you gave his DD work experience in you hedge fund company two years ago.

In my experience that is often how it works, like it or not, especially in certain sectors ...people need to separate the school from the fact that the parents themselves of children at those schools are likely well connected...and often very well off...abolishing private schools won't change that.

i know many who have used their business, professional and private network who are lawyers, top businessmen, in the City, media etc. to help give their children an internship which then opens doors... no-one should pretend that does not go on and not sure how you could outlaw that ...it's especially prevalent in politics as we all know.

Well, at least you are being open about the fact you are paying to prop up and perpetuate a repellent system of nepotism. Kudos for that.

But it can happen through friends at school also with those who have parents that are well connected...I know of one girl who recently got a summer internship at a famous PR firm (and will likely get a job there after uni) because she was good friends with a girl at school whose mother was its head. Getting her CV straight to her friend's mother and the fact she'd already met her, rather than having it sit in a pile of 100s of others obviously helped.

motherinferior, I am not saying it's fair...and I did not ascribe that as my motives ...I want my DCs to rely on their own talents and they are smart and driven enough to succeed on that basis...but I know some parents do go private/public for those perceived advantages and while they may not openly admit it, also for the social milieu of a public school vs. a comp or a grammar ...to pretend otherwise and to pretend successful careers are not sometimes built on networking is naive...I know, I see it all the time and if a good friend asks me about helping get their child an internship, I would look at it but only if their child is good enough in the first place and can pass through the relevant hoops. That doesn't mean you can't build a successful career without the networking...of course you can, and you even may have more drive to do so.

Tilleroy. I agree that there should be much more to education than just grades and that many private schools offer their students incredible opportunities. However, our large local comp does have all sorts of enrichment activities. I don't suppose it matches up to a private school but it's pretty good.
I like the fact that a lot of the kids that go to our local school are involved in local sports teams or cultural activities. It makes for a strong community and its nice that the kids don't live in a bubble surrounded only by their contemporaries. I know it makes a huge difference where you live though. Our town is fairly affluent so there are plenty of opportunities about.

I like the fact my kids have friends from all walks of life. I think it gives them a rounded education.

Another bonus from not sending them to private school is that it is easy for us to afford to do extra things with them such as theatre trips and travelling.

There will always be parents who want the "snob factor" of a particular school and those who genuinely believe the old boy net work thrives but I don't believe this is the motivation of the majority. Most are paying £34 000 pa per child because the think the education whether it be exam results extra curricular opportunities or which Uni their DC will go onto is better than what the state sector can offer.

IAlwaysThought, sounds like you made absolutely the right choice for your DCs then and they have turned out just fine....but like you said if your town is fairly affluent ...that makes it rather inaccessible to some who can't afford to move there...it's horses for courses I guess...I wish the state offered much more by way of all round education as well as academics that is comparable with the better privates ...it should, and in countries like those in Scandinavia folk would think it odd to go private when state is so good and also offers the vocational options, and then those here in the middle classes who feel compelled to spend so much to go private would benefit from it also, but sadly in many areas here it does not even come close to compare.

Tilleroy There is certainly a lot to consider when choosing schools. We moved to the UK when the kids where all in secondary school so we already had a good idea what type of schooling would suit our kids and we were in the fortunate position of being able to choose where to live. Choosing a naice town and a naice local comp worked for us.

I think there are a lot of resources available for children in less affluent areas but you need savvy parents or a proactive school to access them.
One of my DDs attended a Headstart course this summer, these courses are to remote science and maths degrees and careers to school children. The organisation that runs Headstart is a registered educational charity and courses are subsidized. Bursaries are provided for children from deprived backgrounds. Unfortunately, the majority of the girls on my daughters course were from prestigious private schools (Habs, Westminster etc) or top Grammar Schools (Kendrick). My DD was one of the only ones not studying Latin It would have been nice if there had been a wider cross section of students on the course.

I just don't think getting a full on education, ensuring the best of everything (best sport, best drama, best music, best facilities, best speakers and contacts, best academics) is actually very good for anyone. I don't really see in what way it makes you a better, nicer or more rounded person to have everything thrown at you like that. (Please note, however, I don't think it will make nice people obnoxious - plenty of good people come out of these schools, I just don't think they were made that way by the schools themselves, I think they would have ended up like that, anyway). Obviously, I can see it's great for you, in a very self-centred sort of way, because the opportunities on offer are amazing, but I don't see how it can actually be good for you, or indeed anyone else. I've only so far seen one episode of the Harrow programme - the one with the cadet force - and I have to admit to wondering what those boys were learning about real life when they could just order spanking new uniforms for their competition without, apparently, having to think about the cost. There's something too puritanical in me to approve of that! They really are being prepared for a different life from that of the majority - different and separate. I don't see that as a good thing.

just had to pick up and say,
I've never accused HappyGardening of talking bollocks before
but to say that Winchester does not look after its own is laughable

DN left there with (for them) shite grades but they ensured that doors which should have been slammed shut were wide open.

I am with Tillory on this thread,. However it would be a boring world if we all had the same views.

I don't see why a child getting the best food at home or best attention or cuddles or best genes is any more wrong than one whose parents seek to buy it the "best" education.

I genuinely don't mind what my children do after I have paid for their education. i want them to find themselves, feel they can achieve anything they want (even if that be a life as a hermit in a cave looking at walls) and have exposure to a large range of hobbies and I suppose infusion with my own ethos (both at home and school).

The Harrow is worth watching and I think it shows a lot of kindness, consideration for the children, some of the pros and cons of boarding and is a pretty fair description of school life. Boarding isn't necessarily an advantage however for many children which is why it's on the wane.

Firstly I'd like to say I'm not convinced the vast majority of small private schools that serve their local area are necessarily better than state schools. I'm lucky to live in an area with the best state schooling in the country apparently and so there are only 2 private schools, one of which is about to become a free school. The state schools send people to Oxbridge every year, academically you couldn't want for more.

Having said that if I could afford to send my children to a top notch private day school then yes I would do it. It's just part of the same continuum as taking your children for days out that have educational benefits, or paying for private music lessons or asking a friend to give them some work experience in an industry they are interested in. In other words 'would you do the best thing you can afford for your children?' Yes, obviously.