Why do some parents think private school at primary is a waste of money.... but are secretly saving for secondary?

[Tallandgracefulmum]

AIBU as my little one is starting prep school in Sept. I was asked by a friend at DD's nursery my plans, said private all the way and was told I would be wasting my money and should save it for secondary when it matters.

I hate this ..most parents I know would send kids private all the way through but cannot afford it so are saving for secondary. But to be honets if your not used to paying shed loads monthly for schooling, you will not suddently 7 years later ( and higher fees) start doing it for secondary.

What some people don't seem to get is that some parents value educational experience over material possessions or fancy homes. This friend in question said she will use the money she saves to provide education experiences for her children and give them a lump sum for uni.

My thoughts are she just can't afford it and wants to make me feel bad for spending my hard earned money.

How many parents actually compare a range of private school fees, then calculate how much it would cost to send one child then save the relevant monthly amount ready to give each off spring at 18? Doesn't happen. What's wrong in providing the best educational experience you can afford for your kids without others constantly telling me I am wasting my money.

FWIW I can understand private school bashers who hate all forms of private schooling, but not those who bash primary but would send kids to secondary in a heartbeat!

I agree that anybody who does sport at a very high level will be doing it outside school and therefore in some cases may have more time if going to a state school (although Tom Daley and many others are at private school). The good private schools though definitely have the edge on having more activities available that children can try out with their school friends without parental intervention as well as more sport fixtures.
When they are good, private schools prevent children from slipping under the radar or getting bored by combining good teaching with smaller class sizes and more teacher time to prepare. They also allow the child to be viewed more holistically by tutors who have time get to know the child overall.

Parents can compensate out of hours for many of these aspects but that does introduce a parental bias which may not always allow DC freedom to develop in their own way

The thing is jin you seem to expect posters to list a definitive concrete list of what makes their prep school superior to their local primary...

But quite often these things are less concrete, more personal. So what realliy is the point in posters explaining, especially as your view is so entrenched, and presumably you would like said list so that you can shoot it down one by one.

You seem inordinately fixed on proving that no prep school could ever provide more than your DC are receiving in primary. Yet you accuse others of the same. It's deliciously ironic ...

The truth is, these things are subjective.

I could list you some of the things my DC receieved in their prep school which they would not have receieved in the local primaries. But what would be the point? Those things mattered to me? They were valuable to me?

I don't expect you or anyone else to value those things. In fact, I accept that educationally, my views are that of an outlier. But that's okay .

As I've already said, Tallandgracefulmum - they're YOUR friends. It says something about you that you have friends who are gym bunnies who like monthly hairdressers' appointments and extremely expensive meals out. Now that you've realised how shallow they are (if they really are - you ought to have had an inkling prior to this...), or can't afford to join them, perhaps you'll look for other friendships that more appropriately reflect your new stance. Having money does not mean you have to spend it all on your appearance and being seen in the "right" places, even if you don't have children to lavish it upon.

My children are state educated and I certainly don't spend my spare cash on hairdressers, gym memberships or expensive meals out... Maybe I'd realise I'm actually quite poor if I tried!

But guess what, it is actually possible for people to decide to save their money for their children's future needs, not to make the choice either to blow it on hairdressers or to educate their children privately from the year dot...

But word, that's the whole point, isn't it? It is subjective, and so why do some of the private school customers seem so adamant that what they're getting is better? And that the rest of us are either too poor to afford the best, or don't value education as much as they do?

I have asked for concrete details because the sweeping statements about private schools offering more breadth and depth are meaningless. I don't want to shoot them down one by one. I have acknowledged that facilities are generally better at private schools and that there may be more unusual sports on offer. I have also noted that some people may prefer subject specialist teaching, though personally I don't agree.

Unlike some of the posters on this thread, I don't have any need to demonstrate that what my dd is getting is better than what is on offer elsewhere, but on the basis of what I have seen, I do believe that it is equivalent. If people choose to pay more because of their personal circumstances or preferences, that's entirely their call, but they are hugely misguided if they assume that their choice is better than those made by other people.

When dd was small, we paid over the odds for childcare because it suited us as a family to have a friend of a friend working as a nanny in our own home. I did not need to justify this expense to myself by convincing myself that the alternatives were somehow inferior, it was just what suited us and our circumstances. I have many friends who used the local nursery and/or childminders, and their kids are every bit as happy and well adjusted as my own.

I have friends who use private schools because it happens to suit them and/or their kids. That's great, but where I object is when people make assumptions that private would be the best option for all kids, if only their parents could afford it or would make enough sacrifices to send them. That simply isn't true.

Tom Daley moved to a private school after his first Olympics. Due in part to bullying - but also because that school could provide him with a timetable around his sporting commitments (the Lithuanian swimmer Ruta ?? was given a scholarship to the same school as well). In both cases they were already performing at a very high standard while in the state sector. The private school allowed them to do well academically but did not affect their coaching at all.

Word - people are responding to the claim made up thread that top preps do everything to a higher standard than any state school.

Well first, most people of course do not make the choice not to use private school; it's simply unaffordable.

At 15k a year, per child (plus all the flipping extras) it's become unobtainable for many, icluding the traditional middle classes.

That's why I would never judge anyone for not using private school (and I think the OP is wrong to). Most people, no matter what they claim on MN don't have that kind of spare change.

However, the high cost does not mean it isn't valuable on a subjective level. It's only money after all . You earn it, you spend it, you earn some more...

When we first chose our DC's prep, it was based on little more than gut feeling. The place felt right. There were acres of green space, used every day, which appealed and it was five minutes away.

Now my DC are big busting teenagers, I can look back and measure their prep experience more readily. Especially as I volunteered at the local primary for years, so I could see a good comparison.

These are some of the things I think were valuable to us...

1. Large year group, split into smaller classes (4 x 15).
2. A full time TA per class.
3. Early flexible setting.
4. Early introduction of meaningful MFL with native speakers.
5. Sport every day. Competitive sport every week.
6. Subject specialist teachers.
7. Well resourced; science labs, ICT suite, music studios, art studios, gym, tennis courts yadda yadda.
8. Music; orchestra, choirs, jazz bands etc
9. Drama taken uber seriously with lots of public performances.

10. High academic standards (enough to secure my DS with a scholarship for one of the most selective secondary schools in the country). I perhaps didn't see this as clearly at the time, but boy was it good! 11. Extra curricular - every day, lots of choice. No need to do the middle class shuffle around town with tired hungry kids, sourcing tennis lessons and bell ringing camps after school . 12. Looooooong holidays. 13. Like minded parents. 14. The school/parents partnership was very strong and much was expected of us. Wouldn't suit a lot of people! 15. Homework. 16. Exams.

Now obviously, some people will think yuck homework, or whatever, but that doesn't make it less valuable to me...

saintly it's becoming ever more difficult for DC to take sports/music/drama etc to a high level at state school, because they won't let them have the necessary time off!

My DD performed in a west end show last year and there was not one state schooled kid on the rota! They won't give them the time off. So most were independently schooled, with some home schooled.

I do think "yuck, homework!", but unfortunately I'm saddled with it in the state sector as well! Now that's one thing I would change about my dd's school...

Avid in a way of course that is true because state school kids are not constrained to onky accessing the opportunities offered by their school, they can also access community, LEA and private provision. Thus, one of my DDs has her second study instrument lesson at a nearby private school, organised by her state school after her previous peri retired, to ensure continuity of provision and provision at a suitable level (the replacement peri at her own primary school focuses on introduction to the instrument and the lower grades, DD2 is well beyond that, and the peri at the private school is also the person who will teach her at her secondary school (she also teaches DD1). So the provision accessed for that instrument is the same for my state educated DDs as it is for privately educated ones. For their first study instrument again the same teacher is at the private schools. And DD1 is able to access additional teaching from an internationally renowned performer/teacher on a regular basis. This would also be available to private school pupils (but only outside school, as individuals not as part of their school package). I would never argue that my DCs are able to access opportunities that are specifically closed to private school pupils, merely that the opportunities they can and do access are just as good (for their particular interests) and that this is underlined by the fact that there are many private school pupils attending the activities they do (especially the dance and drama ones) outside school.

I can't speak for other posters but I found the claim that private school ECs were a 'higher standard' without any rider that this was obviously only in relation to things like polo, or Greco roman wrestling, to be extremely arrogant and annoying.

And. Not avid. Not sure how the iPad came up with that one...

word it's becoming ever more difficult for DC to take sports/music/drama etc to a high level at state school, because they won't let them have the necessary time off!

Not been my experience. Although it does worry me, to the extent that I have already talked to Dd2s next head - and he seems set to be as supportive of her as he is of DD1 (didn't bat an eyelid at her missing induction day last week because of her show). Obviously DD2 doesn't have the option of west end auditions due to geography. But she's had no problems with appearing in local professional productions (usually only a week long though).

Herc I think some things are definitely better accessed outside of schools (any school) if a child wants to get to a very high standard. For example, and would-be footballers will need to get signed at an academy these days. School footie won't cut it.

What I would say though, is that a good independent school will help a parent as much as they can, providing the best resources they can on site, and an understanding that time off will be needed.

Both my DC have benefited from this and the school have never been anything other than supportive! It makes for an easier life, that's for sure.

I've not read ALL 16 pages of this thread but I want to have my say on this matter. DH and I are both PhDs, we can afford private primary for DS but we have chosen not to. Do not for a second believe that means we do not value education. Between us we have spent 42 years in education. DH went to state school all the way and then local six form college. I was educated in a mix of schools including state, public and grammar. We value education. We have decided our local private primary offers nothing more than our local primary. The only way it's better is in class size but we actually feel out DS will thrive when there are lots of children from lots of backgrounds, as an only child we want him to mix and experience others.

Stop being so snobby and judgey!

Herc I hope your school remains supportive.

It really pisses me off that sports and the arts are returning to being something only the rich can access!!!!

*What I would say though, is that a good independent school will help a parent as much as they can, providing the best resources they can on site, and an understanding that time off will be needed^

But so does a state school. Even in this post Govian nightmare I could email school in the middle of the holidays and say 'whoops just found out ds2 needs to take the whole of the first day back off' and within ten minutes had a reply saying no problem, bring the absence form in the day he comes back - it's classed as educated off site.

Word, my DDs comp has a pupil who is an internationally ranked tennis player, has been in junior Wimbledon and many international tournaments. The school have been very flexible and allow her to attend part time to fit around her commitments.

At her private prep, however, there was a pupil who appeared in one West end show but then the school refused to allow her the time off to appear in any more. She had to leave to be homeschooled or forget about performing. At my DSs prep a promising tennis player left as he was not allowed time off from school rugby matches to attend tournaments .

All schools are different with regards to flexibility for individual pupils circumstances, it really is not possible to generalise by sector.

I see no reason to fear that it won't. DD1 - despite her abysmal attendance record this year due to medical treatment (which got even worse two weeks ago when she was in hospital again) - will be missing the last week of term for a residential thing and they didn't bat an eyelid (lots of emails saying what a great opportunity it was for her).

If her academic performance suffered, then maybe...so far it hasn't though. Despite everything. DD2 is under no illusions that her first commitment has to be doing well enough at school work, but that's coming from me, regardless of whatever attitude the school may take. I suspect they might well be happy with slightly less effort from her on that front than I will be.

I think this thread is very subjective. The world of £300 monthly gym membership and expensive lunches with the girls is very far outside the experience of the average person with a child at a state school and the vast, vast, majority of people with children at private schools are not paying £30K/annum/child + extras for their child to go to an expensive boarding school like Millfield.

I think it boils down to:

1. The OP's 'friends' are not representative of state school parents so their opinions aren't really that relevant to a discussion of what state school parents think.

2. Activities available at boarding schools are not representative of activities available at private schools in general.

3. Pretty much all activities available at a private school can be provided outside a private school. This may or may not be more logistically challenging for you taking into account where you live, your financial resources (which will obviously be higher without school fees), comparative commuting time to school and your other commitments.

4. Whether your local state school or private school suits your child academically will depend on your local state schools, private schools and child. There is so much variation that it is not possible to make generalisations.

Oh that was to me - not my experience at all. This year ds2 has had time off for a variety of professional performing activities. School gave accommodated last minute changes, have whizzed through the paperwork because a licence was needed yesterday (actuall more than once a surprising number of production companies leave it to the last minute) & responded to absence requests during school holidays. The head told me they recognise that they only provide one part of a child's education.

Well that's lucky saintly our local comps won't give time off - which is why DD's school has girls in it on national teams!

It's the only way they could pursue their sports.

Word - mind you, my kids being able to access them is hardly a stand against 'the rich' having a stranglehold on the arts.

ongolden maybe I have been very lucky then .

When DD needed a large chuck of the year off to rehearse/perform, school were fine! They sorted out how she was going to keep up with school work, and let her come into school whenever she could/wanted to.