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!

Obviously we still paid!!!!

And as for not one state school kid on the West End rota - which show? I know state school kids who have been in West End shows. We live hours from London so ds2 doesn't audition for West End shows but he's done several West End tours without any problem. I don't think time off for that sort of thing is generally a problem at all as there's an easy to use code 'educated off site'

Tallandgracefulmum I haven't read the whole thread. My advice for what it is worth is to try and ignore the private school bashers (primary or otherwise). You are right when you say that it is your money and that you should be free to spend it as you wish.

The bottom line is that it is your business and your business alone how you educate your children.

Both of my children are at preps and I simply do not engage with people outside of the school about their education. Equally, I do not discuss my salary or other private aspects of my life.

If people are jealous or wish to judge you for your choices that is their call. Personally I see it is a complete waste of time and energy obsessing about how others educate their children and if this is something they wish to do I leave them to it.

They've even allowed him time off for auditions (which I was surprised about as I think time off school for an audition is nearly always a complete waste of time and they'd be better in school - we don't do many for that reason).

It just goes to show you can't generalise by sector or across the range of every possible EC activity. I know for a fact that local private schools do not have the quality of drama and dance provision as that provided by the independent open to all (who can pay - but prices are pretty reasonable) organisation. I don't know what drama provision is like in other parts of the country. I know that for DD1's first study instrument she can access some of the best teaching available in this country, this is also accessible to private school pupils of course but not with in their schools. My point has only ever been that in some things, there is definitely the existence of at least parity for at least some kids. So a sweeping 'private schools always have higher standards for EC' sort of statement is incorrect, even if the particular private school the person making the statement about does have higher standards than anyone else in the world for some things. Kids at boarding school are unlikely to get the range of performance opportunities available to kids in day schools (state or private) for example.

JimJams - so do I (kids living here! I wouldn't consider it though, despite having a relative in London with whom DD2 could conceivably stay).

Herc I think when you take anything to a high level, you probably have to move out of the school arena, to source the best quality teaching etc.

But for most activities, most kids don't need that type of resource. Just good quality easily accessible provision. And for those things I'd rather have them on site, especially at prep level, as the middle class after school round of lessons/activities is excrutiating ...I hasve done my time poolside on a wednesday evening and it's no fun at all! For parents or kids!

And although many seem stunned state schools do offer plenty of extra cirricular opportunities. I have kids in the state & private sector so can compare.

Snap herc - ds2 could find somewhere to stay for 6 months but it seems a lot of effort & distuptive for friendship groyps etc. We just look for local stuff (& there's plenty of it - and we live the tours :) )

saintly I don't think anyone is stunned are they?

Though of course there seems to be a mix up here between those talking about prep and those talking about secondary.

But the reality so that it doesn't really matter what your primary offers, does it? I don't live there. Nor does the OP.

So, I can hand on heart tell you, that my local primary offers almost no extra curricular activities! No dance. No sport. No music. No drama. They didn't even have a football team until I sported out with my DC's prep school that they be allowed to use our pitches once a week!

Not being arsed to be faffed is a perfectly valid reason for preferring private schools. It's certainly one I can get behind (I am constitutionally unable to locate my arse for practically anything in life! including my own endeavours). There just isn't enough of it to go round really. DS is similar. The girls however seem to have sufficient quantity of arse in their own account.

However it should be noted that aversion to faff isn't the same as provision having higher standards. If people had just said - look, it's less faff ok! - I doubt anyone would have had a problem with that. I certainly wouldn't. A faff free life is the holy grail for me.

JimJams - I suspect my kids may do drama with someone who has been on the rota for shows your DS has been in (although he's slightly older so maybe not). I know they wouldn't swap last week's show experience at the 'big theatre' for anything they could have been doing at the local private schools instead (and many of their castmates opted for big theatre show rather than their internal school one).

The main reason I wouldn't let DD2 consider West End is that I suspect she'd never come back.

For most activities I'm content with A Good Standard of provision. Especially when we're talking here about DC under 11.

I certainly don't need to hunt down Judy Murray to teach my DC tennis at 6 .

What I wanted was a huge selection for my DC to try on site.

Same for academics. At primary level I did insist on subject specific teachers and native speakers for MFL, but I didn't need Tracey Emin to come in and teach art! Just someone who was expert-enough, or at the very least, more expert than me!

Word - some people do seem stunned, you know. Not you, obviously, but you're pretty sensible (far more so than most, and certainly more so than me). Worth remembering though that just because a primary school doesn't offer much doesn't mean that the kids who go there don't do much. My DD2's experience is a case in point. The model for state educated kids is different than the model for privately educated kids, state parents don't expect the school to provide everything, they can select from a range, and while this does sometimes bring with it the secondary or tertiary career of taxi driver, it can also mean that you only do the stuff you want to and you can avoid the stuff you deplore.

On the subject of state schools allowing students time off to pursue their special interests, the winner of Young Musician of the Year in 2012 (Laura van der Heijden) went to a state comprehensive which must have allowed her tonnes of time off to pursue her studies!!! I fear Michael Gove and his reforms, however, are forcing more and more state schools to become less and less flexible and as a result, I'm more and more interested in back up plans to avoid the effects of the unpleasant attitude apparently pervading the DfE that all state school parents are feckless wasters and all state school teachers lazy Trotskyites.

Less faff is fine. That's why my two younger kids did primary years in private (with severely disabled ds1 to juggle as well the wrap around child care provided by the private school was invaluable). But I don't see much (any?) difference in extra curricular activities tbh. Secondaries get compared as well because we're talking 'top' prep schools - ie those that go up to age 13.

Oooh Herc I wonder who...? DS1 loves the shows - couldn't do it if he didn't - & tbh I think he learns a lot from seeing how hard the performers work (& how many other things they do to be able to make a living from performing).

Not ds3's bag at all!

The whole argument is so dependent on area. Where I live, virtually no one goes to a private school. There is no point. We do live near top public school, but that is obviously in a different league and, anyway, when I look at the boys there it seems increasingly to be a Russian and Chinese school rather than a Goodbye Mr Chips institution.

If, however, I lived somewhere else I might very well scrimp and save for a private school or indeed move. I'm not necessarily thinking of London or a metropolitan area, but I believe some rural or seaside places have schools that do not offer the best environment. At least a London inner-city school will have Sutton Trust people etc swarming all over it, but if you are in Great Yarmouth I doubt whether musicians/artists/sportsmen/language specialists are beating a path to the school's door.

saintly yes some preps go up to 13, but the resources are available to the younger DC.

So DC left her prep at 11, but she had still benefited from all the resources, ECs, setting, specialist teaching yadda yadda.

In fact, I'd say years 4,5 and 6 in a good prep are the best bit. The pupils have access to so much, yet it is all available in an age apropriate setting.

Years 7 and 8 are different. Most DC will have gone to secondary, so the resources on offer (specialist teaching, setting, ECs etc) will be, for the most part, comparable, I should have thought. What you're getting here is preparation for public school, which most people, even in the private sector, don't want or need.

Now this was valuable to DS as he wanted to go to public school, but it wouldn't have been valuable to DD as she wanted to attend a non-selective day school who had their main intake at 11.

It's

OP, it's important to recognise that the world has moved on in the past 30 years and attitudes to university and the professions within the state education (i.e. which 5% of the population can go) have changed tremendously in that time. It's easy to forget how different the social context was. Yes we can all wheel out exceptions here and there, but they were just that.

of course, there is still a bias to private education in tocertain elite sports though. but I can think of one example where having a resourceful and determined parent who was introduced to it at private school had been enough for their child to excel at it later despite being state educated throughout.

Isn't the change though the other way round Ob? That there is less social mobility than there was so paying school fees is more important now than 30 years ago?

I think social mobility is certainly being strangled. :(

Well, I don't have the stats but what I can definitely say is that it was very bad back then. A lot of people who are now 40+ did go back and get degrees as mature students though. Some of them could probably have done it the first time round. It just wasn't accessible like it is now.

jane sadly that is true .

I look at what things were like when I was growing up, and now, and I dispair!

It is becoming harder and harder to access certain things without cold hard cash. Sports and arts are becoming increasingly the preserve of the monied. Tertiary education costs a fortune. Internships are so prevalent now, that they're almost a rite of passage in some industries.

The traditional middle classes are almost as excluded as the working classes, as the middle ground disapears. It's no longer enought o know stuff, to speak nicely, to have cultural capital...you need money!

And as the gulf between those who can access things, and those that can't (the majority) widens, it becomes increasingly more difficult to make the necessary leap.

It wasn't very bad back then. It was great. The people who needed to go to university and were capable of going to university went, regardless of income. Most people were able to find rewarding decently remunerated work, which enabled them to live benefit free and even get on the property ladder. These days, so many people go to university that it isn't free for anyone any more, so the poorer people lose out (even though they needn't, since government assistance is available but apparently the aversion to debt is felt more strongly by those with less money - would've thought it). If you don't have a degree, it's much more difficult to get the sort of decent paying job that used to be available. So many careers are now graduate only when before they were accessible to all with appropriate role specific training. So many people with degrees can't get a job and when they do they find they can't live benefit free - which is just nutty.