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!

Gobbolino why is being a laweyer a problem?

Dh is a managing partner of an MC law firm. Hr did the school run this morning .

I have a full time professional job and therefore don't see my children during the week - they are asleep when I leave the house and asleep when I get home.

So of course I, as the father, don't have as strong a relationship with my children as DW does as she has breakfast with them, takes them to school, picks them up from school, takes them to afterschool clubs and play dates. I do have a strong emotional bond with them but it isn't as strong as DW's - I don't see it as at all insulting to state that.

And that's a key driver for why I have just taken my kids out of private school (prep school age) and into the State sector, plus gone part-time and work from home a lot more. I'm still financially better off than I was before (the school fees were more than the 20% of my gross income I've foregone) but get to have a stronger relationship with my children while I can.

The prep school was definitely better in some ways than their State school but the gap is perhaps surprisingly small and I now have the time to more than make up that gap.

But Word - I was refuting her statement that the privately educated child will always do better (and she was I think talking specifically about our part of London too). It only needs one counter example to refute that.

I'm not saying privately educated kids don't often do better. I'm sure your kids will do better than mine, for example. My problem is with the 'always'.

Oh don't say that Herc .

Your DC are clever and talented and go to a fabulous school ( a real outlier of state schools I'd say) and have you and your DH behind them.

I suspect they'll do very nicely indeed thank you ...

zig you're surely not saying that parents need to work part time to have a decent bond with their DC?

Becasue that's a bit insulting to, like the vast majoirty of parents who have no choice! They work full time to pay for food and fuel and a home...

In other words, the more money you have, the less you have to think about whether something is "worth" it and the more you can think about whether you "want" it.

Wealth can bring you the knowledge that you don't have to worry about comparing prices all the time, you don't have to weigh up relative quality and value, you can just buy what you like, when you want it. Unless they enjoy number crunching and tiresome price comparisons, it probably is of more personal value to a wealthy person that they can choose quickly and easily what best fits their needs or desires and then go and do something more interesting, than to spend hours of their time trying to work out relative values of purchases that are not always easily comparable products. Even a minuscule difference in absolute quality can be worth it if money is no object. Obviously, a minuscule difference in quality for a huge price tag is NOT worth it if it means it adversely affects other areas of your life. Also, never having to stop and consider what you are doing and what your real motivations are for doing things, can create a rather shallow personality.

DS doesn't. And I think DD1's medical and other issues will continue to thwart her, to be honest.But I think they will all be able to do what they want to do, even though that doesn't include having the keys to the sweetie shop - if nothing else, my professional 'success' has shown them that that's not actually all it's cracked up to be...

My kids aren't boring and if that's the best that can be said for them...well, that'll do me. Cos actually - that's quite a Big Thing.

I do find the people who bang on about working FT and PT and the effect it has on kids etc both annoying and yet also funny.

There's very little original thinking on what can constitute a successful professional career in evidence.

*I mean I know on MN there are allegedly tons and tons of people economising to use independent school. But in reality, I suspect the majority can afford it quite easily.

I'd be willing to lay odds that for most parents at private school 150k is no where near one year's income.*

I don't know. Around 50% of children at both my two's independent schools are on bursaries. I know plenty of people who earn less than we do (and we earn nowhere near 150k) and go to these schools. Some of it is money from inheritances/grandparents/selling London houses. The only way we afford private schools is through the great piece of luck that meant my husband was in a company that went through a series of lucrative privatisations and mergers.

TheWordFactory - I think there are different sorts of bond, and different combinations of parents and children have different levels of need and desire. It would be just as insulting to turn around to Zigster and tell him he's an idiot for wanting more time with his children, because the bond he already has is just fine, wouldn't it? Fwiw, whilst there are a great many parents who are happy to both work full time and who find it works for them, there are just as many who do this unhappily because they have to and who do not feel it enables them to enjoy the family life they had hoped for when they were younger. They are no more wrong than you are, they are just less happy with the hand life has dealt them.

rabbit I think there's some truth in that (as there is in most of what you say ).

I would say that the vast majoirty of parents at DC's prep school could well afford it! Including a number of families with four/five/six kids. I never heard anyone discuss a cost/benefit analysis... the fees didn't remotely cripple them, so they cheerfully paid it.

I guess if you're wealthy you don't flinch at cost. You've got it. There's more where it came from. If you persoanlly value something then its accepted as inherently worth it. You don't worry too much and you certainly don't worry what others think of your spending!

Managing partner is fine. Junior partner or senior associate - you're there as the billing monkey to let the managing partner take his children to school.

The hours are absolutely not conducive to parenting 6 children without outsourcing that care to someone else. I'm amazed that tall and her husband can manage nursery pick ups etc.

I'd love to post a link to this thread on Roll On Friday I won't and see what the posters there think.

abraid that's interesting. 50% wow!

We live in the la-la land of commutor belt to the city, so, as you can imagine, the place is swimming in money. No surprise here that people don't struggle with school fess and drive past one of the highest achieving comprehensives in the country to use private schools.

Those children are so advantaged it squeaks .

Money, lovely home, supportive and highly educated parents (with an overwhelming number having a SAHP or micro part time parent)...all before they even access formal education.

To (mis)quote Ftitzgerald...the rich are not like you and I...

I'd agree that significant numbers of people do hold back on spending in some areas to afford private school. I know loads. They spend less on the kids in other ways, or they don't buy new clothes for themselves very often (I'm talking at all, not just not expensive clothes). Some are just plain loaded, yes. But there are many more private school filled places than there are people for whom £150k is a small proportion of annual income.

Even the best private school isn't the key to the door by itself though. I have a friend who has her eldest in private primary school, and says things like 'oh we're too busy to do the reading thing with him but that's what I pay the school for.' He isn't doing anywhere near as well as some of his state educated peers, because he isn't getting the bookending of support at home. You have to put in the time and effort at home, private school or not, for kids to do as well as they can. Harder when you both work, but can be done. 3 days out of 7 our nanny does the reading with DS. Makes me feel guilty but I want to work and I want us to have money, because money does equal more choices.

If you are phemonally wealthy that you don't notice the school fees then it makes sense to use private school. The opportunities for sport, music, drama and wider curriculum justify the 15k a year. Using a private school is providing the child with a more enriching childhood rather than necessarily improving employment opportunities. State education provides the basics, but parents have to work harder to provide the frills.

If you don't have 150k income and more than one child then you do find that it makes sense to do a cost analysis. There is no point in living off bread and water to afford a medicore private school.

In some cases enabling your child to get on the housing ladder is a greater gift than private education.

Agree, Really. This goes back to the OP, and the fact that her friend would rather use the cash she saves to in part go on a lump sum for the kids later in young life. I agree a much better gift, although the OP's kids probably don't really need to worry about that. Again shows that some of the really wealthy don't really get how the other half lives.

...and yes, OP's friend shouldn't judge that OP is wasting her money but as I have said further up, I suspect alot of mutual sniping goes on there! It seems clear to me that these two women can't stand each other and shouldn't bother to engage at all.

really you're right of course.

If school fees are a stretch then you have to assess what you're getting versus what you're doing without.

I guess, you also have to keep in mind that some people have not much option than to use private school (oversubscription of local schools, issues with a school that can't be resolved). Or they simply can't get what they want locally (single sex ort selection or whatever). The analysis for those parents will be more nuanced.

And DH and I do often ask ourselves what we would be prepared to do to continue paying school fees (our biggest outgoing) if we lost everything tomorrow. I think if you're from poverty, you always worry you'll return. Perhaps if you're not from poverty, you can't imagine that, in the same way that so many middle class people can't imagine that their DC won't be able to access what others can; it just doesn't compute.

If you think that parents aren't making sacrifices (and I don't mean gym membership and brand clothes) to send their children to private school, you probably live in the South East. Few people outside the South East earn £150K. I'm pretty sure that there are parents at our private school with household incomes of under £50K.

Hedge I don't mean they can find the fees down the back of the sofa. I mean anyone, apart from Elton John is going to notice the fees leaving their bank account each term .

But the sacrifices they make don't include stuff that posters on MN regularly state as being what they'll spend the money on instead of school fees...holidays,activities, help with university costs, deposits for flats yadda yadda.

Yes, we're in the south east. Yes, there's a lot of money down here. As I say La-la land...

But with a family income of 50k how could you push to school fees? I mean even outside the SE, fees must be 3k a term, no?

If you earn £50K gross as a family, you're on £35K+ net. You can pay £10K out of that for one child and still get by. A number of families at our school send only one child, the child that's not been happy at state school, and their second child stays at state.

HercShipwright
Bradley Wiggins, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray - all state educated.
But lets be honest, many of the state educated professional British sports people just dont make it to the top of their game unless coming from sporting families (by the way has Jessica won any other major championships since the Olympics will she defended her title next time OR like most Brits sportsmen/women manage to win a major title once towards the end of their career when there is no competition then quit/retire: if they are consistent year on year in championships after championships but another story).
Bradley does not don't represent the traditional, was not born in UK and his father was a professional cyclist and the state education he received was from a high achieving faith school.
Unless the child has access to sporting opportunities at school or through parents, family or money to access clubs then it is unlikely they will make it pro.
The support the sporting bodies support young kids who show promise is atrocious in this country! Thats why we never consistently churn out the top quality sports people who compete on a world class level (excluding football), I am sorry this country does not produce quality sports people who can defend titles. Money usually thrown on the hopes of one single individual's career progression instead of grass roots for many. We invent sports, but cannot dominate them, why? All down to aspirations and determination as well as all of the above.
I can mention many sports men and women who had money thrown at them and are still flops 

"If you earn £50K gross as a family, you're on £35K+ net. You can pay £10K out of that for one child and still get by. A number of families at our school send only one child, the child that's not been happy at state school, and their second child stays at state."

20K would give a pretty crap existance for a family where I live. With private schools its all the extras that cost as well.

I feel that sending one child private and one child state is cruel. No school is perfect and if my children were not happy at a state school then I would change state school. Going to private school is not a magic wand for ensuring a happy childhood.

Tall - you clearly know nothing about athletics. Or cycling. Or sport in general.

The most obvious sport in which we consistently underachieve is football! We have had a remarkable level of success in most other sports over the years, even in areas in which we weren't traditionally strong e.g. gymnastics (oh, and Louis Smith? State educated)

Tall you sound delusional about the sport. A private school isn't going to propel someone to olympic success. As I said before it's usually about geography. Around here the fencing and diving clubs look for potential champion fencers and divers and so open their doors as widely as possibly to as many different kids as possible. When they find someone that looks promising they get supported.

No doubt elsewhere other clubs are doing similar in other sports.

For football you need to get picked up by a big team and made part of their junior academy.

You don't stroll through private school and into any sport you choose at a high level. If you want to play top level sport you have to do it outside (any) school with proper national coaches.