State schools and an easy life or independent?

[TremoloGreen]

We’re doing a bit of financial planning at the moment – our 5/10 year plan – and the issue of schooling has come up. We’ve been leaning towards state education for the following reasons.

A private education is very, very expensive these days and I’m not sure what you get over a good state school is worth the money. A not very scientific survey of people we know (I’d say roughly half are state-educated) suggests to me that the key to being happy and successful in life is a stable, loving family and a can-do attitude/’drive’. These things seem to have more bearing than whether one is state or independently educated.

We could, at a push, afford independent, with a bit of help from our parents. However, it would mean watching the pennies and no fancy holidays. It would also mean that we would both have to work very hard, full-time. At the moment, I only work part-time and DH works full-time but with a good work-life balance. Also, we’d be more dependent on inheritance to fund a comfortable lifestyle in retirement, and I guess there are no cast-iron guarantees with that. In the likelihood that we do get the inheritances we’re expecting, we’d have more cash to help our children with buying homes etc.

We’re in the process of moving house and the area we are moving to has a choice of very highly regarded single sex state schools (non-selective though) or a good, mixed independent school. All the primaries we would have a chance of getting into are ‘outstanding’. There are plenty of extra-curricular activities on offer in the local area. We’re deliberately not buying a particularly flashy house, so we have the choice of what to do with our money. Tying it up in one property/ having a massive mortgage scares me!

The reason we’re wavering is that state education is an unknown to both of us. No-one in either of our families has been to a state school so we don’t know the reality of it. The class sizes concern me, I don’t understand how each child can get enough input – will I really have enough time to do all the extra needed at home? People seem surprised that we would consider state if we can afford independent – do they know something we don’t?

The new generation of actors are coming from private schools because they are able to and indeed wants too offer a much broader curriculum and thus enable their pupils to develop their talents in more areas. Boarding schools in particular are very well placed to do this but even independent day schools often have day often have a significantly longer day.
Many parents paying fees expect their Dc's to be able to participate in drama etc.

Actors have always come from private schools in vast numbers. Nothing new there.

happygardening 1) Bonsoir told us above. 2) For example: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/david-mitchell-private-school-charitable-status-great-for-foreign-plutocrats

Which all boils down to WEALTH, as I said. The new generation of actors had parents with enough wealth to pay for them to become actors, one way or another...

Actors have also always come from the working class and state school too; the key difference is they used to come from these backgrounds in greater numbers than they can afford to now. Julie Walters, Michael Caine, Albert Finney, Richard Burton, Alfred Molina ... I fear that these are the last generations we'll ever see of great actors from working-class backgrounds.

If you are hugely wealthy, of course you can throw everything at your children in the hope something will stick. If you aren't, you need to be more selective about where you spend your money.

Perhaps there should be a dual fee structure at private schools as there is for university: international parents could pay a tax contribution in addition to fees?

It's also a man's world - I don't see the same numbers of women from Cheltenham Ladies' College, or Benenden, being lauded for their success... All this talk about these privately educated actors and politicians is about men. Women don't seem to gain quite the same advantages.

Felicity Jones went to state school (in Birmingham, with a teacher from DD's school!).

Her background isn't really working-class though and she lived in Bourneville, which is pretty affluent.

Rebecca Hall is privately educated, as are Rachel Weisz, Kristin Scott Thomas, Emily Blunt ... I'd say they have advantages too.

But yes, it does seem to be a man's world, at least inasmuch as, if you ask someone about actors who went to private school they will almost always list the men, not the women. Men's public schools seem to have a higher profile.

An interesting article but it doesn't say how much the charitable status of these schools is costing the UK. Does anyone know? And how does this compare with the fact that the UK children are not being educated in state sector? MY DS2 school has I believe has about 12% from outside of the UK that's just over 70 boys, I'm pretty sure similar schools have a similar amount. granola as word has correctly pointed out outside of London and boarding schools e.g. most days schools which. I suspect make up the majority of independent schools are not likely to be made up of even 12% non UK citizens probably 1 max.
I also don't think we should underestimate the importance of these non UK families to the local economy and UK families of course; I don't know if anyone's been down Marlborough high street recently but without a doubt part of the towns success against all odds i.e. no station no obvious tourist attraction is definitely down to the school and it's exceedingly wealthy parents who frequently visit. A big school like Marlborough also provides a lot of jobs, not just teachers but a boarding school requires quite a few manual workers both skilled and unskilled, nurses, secretaries etc. I was surprised when I was in Marlborough Waitrose the other day by how many staff had the Marlborough College Fleeces on, many I suspect weren't teachers.

happy is right that education is a huge economic driver for many UK towns and cities. The university is Bristol's No 1 employer; Tonbridge's economy is school-driven (private and state)...

rabbit Rachel Weisz want to SPGS, Helena Bonham Carter went to Westminster. Frankly I'm uninterested as to where actors and actresses were educated pretty clueless about this sort of thing, it's taken me a while to work out what or who "ER" meant or was and I didn't know he went to Eton (nor cared) so I'm sure their are other actresses who were educated privately.

What OnlyLovers said - a lot of actors (of both genders) have flagged it up as an increasing concern (if that kind of thing concerns you, obviously). The current Gradgrindy insistence that performing arts are Not Proper Education doesn't help, of course.

Also, the famous, privately educated actors referred to so far are famous for playing roles designed perfectly for cut-glass accent, posh people. So it sort of shows how many high profile roles there are for posh people, really, doesn't it? There are a disproportionately large number of acting roles tailor made for English people who look and sound upper class. And it doesn't really require a huge acting effort to look and sound posh if you already are posh .

Charitable status is a way (there are others) of offsetting the costs of educating DC privately against tax in order to compensate tax paying parents who don't use state education.

It lacks transparency as a tax break mechanism.

happygardening - yes, it took me a while to work out who ER was. But once I worked it out, I was happy to repeat it as much as possible, in order to show off my new-found knowledge.

Totally different approach that may or may not be covered up thread. How do you feel about working full time once your children are at school. An awful lot of schools presume mums and or dads are around. Quick chats at pick up, class assemblies. Helping with trips etc. if you are not around at all you can feel quite left out. Chatting to your child on their way home. seeing what mood they are in after school. watch how they interact with class mates.Play dates are a big thing in the lower years of school. Can you join in . Do you want to? How much will you see your child during the week if they go to bed at 7 pm. How will you cover school holidays which incidentally are longer at independent schools.
State and part time in the early years might give you more time but everyone is different and different jobs are different in flexibility etc.

Sorry to have caused the film star confusion! (That's what happens when I don't put down my phone after midnight - I start typing nonsense that has no relevance to the thread.)

I do hate the idea that if you're unwilling to spend every last penny on private education, you're blowing it all on handbags and spenny holidays.

There really is no nobility in penny-pinching. It's grim. I like being able to buy myself (and others) coffees. I like giving nice presents and going on holiday and eating out (which I find is when we really bond as a family, far more so than eating together at home). I like having a cleaner too, maybe that makes me shallow but it also makes me nicer to my family.

Money also buys you time - I do think being able to work part-time as opposed to full-time (if that's what you want) is a luxury greater than a good private school v a good state school.

There should be an algorithm where you can put in: parental income; quality of private schools; quality of local states; iq of child; etc and the answer to 'is it worth it?' would pop out.

(I'm writing as someone about to sign up child for v expensive private secondary, but I'm very glad that we've saved well over £100k so far by not opting for primary).

Something is only worth it if the person spending the money on it thinks it is. The worst thing is to be pressured by others into spending your money because THEY think it's worth it.

That's presumably why some people try to evade tax - because they don't think it is worth it (until they start thinking they are living in a shit-hole of a dangerous country with lousy roads, education system, healthcare system, sewage and sanitation, power supply, entertainment, housing, countryside etc, and move on elsewhere to piss in someone else's pond, until eventually the whole world is a piss pot that nobody wants to live in).

farewell, it is indeed the most ridiculous argument, and in my experience only made by people who have no clue about cutting expenses/living "in the real world".

A friend of mine who sighs that she can no longer afford going to the caribbean n Winter, though they manage 2 ski holidays.

Ah, if only other people were smart like her, and understood that by cutting luxuries, they TOO could afford private education!

I am not making this up.

There often is a huge "let them eat cake" attitude behind this reasoning.

Well, if someone's argument is that if they weren't spending their money on school fees, they would be spending it on exotic holidays, beautifying themselves and handbags, then they are clearly a deeply unimaginative, materialistic person and really can't take any sort of moral high ground. If they are arguing that that's just what OTHER people are spending their money on, then they are clearly deeply unimaginative, materialistic people who are hyper-alert to conspicuous consumers (maybe it takes one to know one?), and never bother to give the time of day to the vast masses of people out there in the world who use their money in different ways.

Loving your "answer to life" algorithm, farewell