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!

HercShipwright
and you know none of them spend money on designer clothes. You do know there are black and purple label designer clothes, the type that look very understated. Not the cheaper brands of designers i.e. DKNY as opposed to Donna Karan or Calvin Klein opposed to CK,
Maybe just the ones you have come across, as where I is littered with well designer men and ladies, especially the European lawyers,
By the way.. I dont need to claim to be anything. I am a working class south London North Peckham girl done good and by my profession and or income no longer fit into the working class category which I am incredibly proud of.

morethanpotatoprints - I am coming to the conclusion that I am not, after all, middle class. My df clearly passed his working class background onto me by mistake, despite his middle class career.

herc - yes, agree

Sorry OP - just don't believe you. I know perfectly well how equity structures work.

I think you said on another thread that your husband is a charities lawyer?

There's a lot of lawyers reading this thread (albeit not posting ) and your situation and descriptions including some of the words you use sounds very, let me chose my words carefully, "atypical". I'll leave it at that.

Oh yes, please do tell me about the European ones. Because I don;t have any experience of that...oh. Wait.

Word - actually to be fair we don't really talk about what we spend our money on so maybe there are people right now claiming they don't know anyone who spends what I spend on my things when in fact...they do. I wouldn't recognise designer clothing if it poked me in the eye, although I do recognise scruffy and not, but then, the scruffy (e.g. me) look scruffy whatever we wear! I suspect maybe some of the wives might spend a fortune actually. The female partners and directors like me, we all look like our apparel is... not the first thing we think about every day.

Oh gawd has this become a standard "people could afford private school if they just made a few economies and therefore they don't care as much about their children's education as I do" thread? We haven't had one of those for a while.

saintlyjimjams
My view is if you can pay for expensive gym membership, hair, eating out weekly, buy brand new designer clothes, have expensive make up monthly, pay hire purchase of 500 per month for a BMW then
I'm lost - very few people can afford this sort of stuff ime. The ones that can are loaded/millionaires & easily afford this & the school fees.
I'm completely baffled.
Yes very few people can afford this, but there are some people who do afford this and state educate, but then complain they cannot afford to send to private when they can just cut their cloth.
All depends on when/where/how bought home if you bought, the investments you make, the number of jobs you do. How you spent money before DC, ages of DC, where you live in the country/ spacing of kids etc.. Just the assumption that you have to be a millionaire to afford private. Maybe 4 kids at Eton et al.

That's what it always was. With a sprinkling of 'private is ALWAYS better and to hell with any evidence to the contrary'. And a soupçon of 'I'm considerably richer than you I spent £2400 to buy a table at a charity event'.

But it's also...a bit odd. On top of all that.

I wondered when we were going to get to the point.

'Soupcon' (can't do the cedilla or whatever it is called) - a word not used enough, Herc!

Gobbolinothewitchscat
Yes my husband is a Charities Lawyer, no all charities who are his clients are poor ( they may expect discount on the standard rates but many charities are extremely wealthy and pay on time! Plus we had very different upbringings.
Believing or not is not the issue. I am still me. The issue to me is seem that people can't over the fact that private primary is not a waste of money.

Been that kind of thread from the start, I'm afraid Mintyy - bit of random 'although no-one gets the working classes like me' thrown in as well.

I love soupcon! and quelque chose ... as in can I offer you a little quelque chose for lunch?

Ah, shame I got bored and left it for days .

HercShipwright

We will never agree. Do not matter. What matters, I am not a fool to think oh, overlook the good schools in my area and go private for snobery. Think the upper classes do that.

I want my DC to benefit from a younger age. In one of my earlier posts I said I have bad handwriting, that was something that I wanted better of my children. I LOVE it that my eldest has better handwriting than me at my age!!

I choose a school that fits DD and I know what I am getting from private IMO is valuable to me and is better to me what the state could provide locally.

It's all a bit plus ça change to be honest.

I think though that the real issue is some people can't get over the fact the private primary is often a waste of money.

dilly and minty then why come back then?

These threads can be strangely addictive. We should probably all push off and do something else

The issue to me is seem that people can't over the fact that private primary is not a waste of money

But why does it matter to you? I sent 2 of mine to private primary (not secondary) & think that it sort of was a waste of money - do what? I couldn't care less whether people agree with me or think it's the best thing ever. Would I make different decisions if I was making those choices again? Possibly, possibly not (even though I don't think it was good value). I don't understand why you care what other people think though.

These threads can be strangely addictive. We should probably all push off and do something else

God yes I have one set of (primary) school fees to earn.

gobbolino I think many (most?) firms have abandonned the old lock step way of earnings. Or use it for minumum payments only.

Lawyers' comp these days is mostly dependent on billings/hours/clients brought in, no?

There are some lawyers in DH's firm who earned over 500k this year and aren't even on the second step of equity! They just have mahoosive practices in Russia.

DH is top equity, but that's not the main driver of his comp. He treats it like an investment for his retirement .

OP since you haven't provided one valid educational reason for going private I think that snobbery is exactly the reason you have made the choices you have made, and the statements you have made in this thread (which reek of both snobbery and ignorance). There are many many valid reasons for going private, and anyone can spend their money how they wish. But if you want to convince others that your reasons aren't rooted solely in snobbery then you need to advance a coherent supported argument - this is something you have singularly failed to do.

Tp be fair though Herc a lot of people's reasons for doing things are based on feelings rather than data.

For example, my feeling is that my DS needed a super-selective school. That he needed a like-ability peer group, that he would not get in a comp...

But that's just my feeling. I don't have evidence. and no doubt the world and his wife will line to explain just what utter rot that is, and why I have competely and utterly wastedmy money ...

Word - but your feelings are perfectly sensible. They almost exactly match the reasons why my DDs are at/going to be at their school. While you aren't backward about coming forward about some well evidenced advantages of private school, I don't think I've ever seen you make the blanket claim that private schools are always better than state. I don't expect the OP to have access to exhaustive statistically valid evidence about outcomes, but some coherent logic to support her argument (not that she ever tried to make one really) would have been possible and could easily have folded in things like ability, SEN, personal characteristics (some kids work best in a laid back atmosphere, some work better in a boot camp type of regime, that sort of thing).

word - not really. Most are on what is called a "modified lock step" which is a mix of equity points and, essentially, a performance related bonus based on individual partner performance and the team's performance. It's only the US forms who tend to have the true "eat what you kill" culture. Where earnings are solely based on what you, personally bring in. That's why PEP figures are, really, relatively meaningless as the spread is so wide.

But that doesn't mean that the vast majority of lawyers would not struggle to send 6 children to private school in London plus other outgoings. By "struggle", I mean that in a very first world way

My DH's uncle is on the thick end of a million a year and finds private education for four teenage daughters plus other general day to day expenses in London eats well into that. 6 would mean a very, very straightened standard of living. He's worked out that - per child - including all extras/uniforms etc, he's paying around £22,000 per annum.

So that's £88,000 just on educational costs. If OP and her husband have 6 DC as they are apparently contemplating, then that's £132k solely on educational costs out of net earnings.

I must agree, I'm finding this thread strangely addictive too. I'm sure OP will be back soon to explain that I've not factored in her recent lottery win in to the finances!

The issue to me is seem that people can't over the fact that private primary is not a waste of money. But OP, that's your personal opinion. Presumably you posted on here because you wanted opinions, and that's what we've given you. Those of us who disagree with you haven't simply said it's a waste of money, we've explained to you why we disagree. As I said upthread, I can't see what our local private options have to offer my daughter that she isn't getting at her current public elementary, so I won't be moving her. Ask me again when she goes to middle school and I may change my mind, but at the moment, yes, I think private education would be a waste of money in our circumstances. I also don't think a private school could offer the level of Special needs support my DD needs, so actually, I would be spending money for my DD to be disadvantaged. Not everyone has the same circumstances as you, which is going to affect whether or not, to them, private education in primary is a 'waste of money'.