Are private schools worth the fees you pay?

[lupo]

Hi

I was looking for some advice from those of you who send your kids to private school. I have one son and recently went to visit Staines Prep School and really fell in love with it.

The thing is we could just about afford the fees, but I will need to work more hours (full instead of part time)as well as few sacrifices along the way. not planning on having any more children, and would like to go private as classes seem smaller, and sounds like children get lots of help and support.

Just wanted to know of your experiences of independant schools and whether good ones are worth the money. Any advice much appreciated.

Like the school but am going on gut instinct, and it is one of the few we could just afford.

Aw, thank you Bink! Spur of the moment stuff - if only I could devote the same level of energy and concentration to work.

I am considering sending my dd to private school. She does not have special needs (just average academically). However Xenia's posts have really worried me. I don't know whether I would want dd mixing with loads of kids with those kind of snobby old fashioned attitudes. How is that going to help her get on in life??

This has just confirmed my fears that lots of the parents at private schools are going to be unpleasant snobs who feel the world owes them a living. I hope I am wrong about this???

Sorry, guys - I was so busy rattling on about agreeing with Issymum that I've missed all the posts inbetween.

I AM JUST SO BLOODY DELIGHTED THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU OUT THERE AS WELL AS XENIA

You make me laugh - so THANK YOU

caroline3 Despite what I've posted I do know lots of really lovely, genuine people who send their kids to private schools.
I just think that some people buy in to the nice woollen blazers and boaters as just as much of a status symbol as the Merc on the drive.
Private education is no guarantee of academic success - you are buyng a different social mix and often smaller class sizes.
Our local private schools fall into 2 camps - the academic ones that pressurise the children and the ones that all the footballers' kids go to!
It's a very personal choice and the % of xenia type mums will vary from one to another.

DC, yes. I think the bigger state primaries are better than the smaller private schools. Some parents who don't know much about private schools think small is always beautiful when it can just mean lack of experience and facilities, unstable economic future of the school etc.

"Grades/university affect careers big time" - yes that's true which is one reason most parents want children at schools which get reasonable A level results.

Correlating their life time success against school is interesting and I mean success in terms of how happy they feel throughout a life, ability to adapt to things going wrong in life, emotional robustness, able to cope with debts, business failure, illness, divorce. I suppose much of that will be down to what they are born with and how they are brought up to the age of 6 or 7 rather than the school. But if you can make children realise they have resources internally that they can always draw out whatever the problem they're dealing with, then that helps them. Perhaps that's what I meant by the self confidence which some private schools seem to give to teenagers and some state schools don't to the same extent You also don't want idiots thinking they're brilliant either - you need enough self deprecation and self knowledge but not a child who thinks they are useless. Hard balance to get right. You don't want children who think they're a genuis because the teacher doesn't believe in red pen and saying they're wrong but nor do you want someone whose individual talents even at the bottom of the class are never praised. Even in very selective private schools you get "mixed ability". Contrast the girls with 11A* at GCSE with my daughters for example.

Teaching of emotional intelligence etc.... some private schools are good on their ethos and morals although parents play a greater role in those things in most cases. Wellington has introduced classes in Happiness.

fp, it's a myth that the academic schools pressuise the children. They don't. The children want to be best because they're like that but the schools play it down. That was very much the case at North London C etc and the other schools my children have been at. There was no pressure. It's usually parents whose children haven't passed to get in who go round going on about the pressure they've saved their not so clever precious little darling from.

I can joke about heels and Handel on the lawns but I certainly didn't pick "posh" schools at all. I like the inclusiveness of very mixed race and religion and background schools ours went to where it's IQ not other things that determine who gets in (of course only if the fees can be afforded). It's in a sense just buying the grammar schools people used to have free. Such a shame. The smarter the uniform the worst the school's results often - good test for prospective parents to look at.

Well, THAT sounds a lot more human! Must've been compiled in between sorting out the meals on wheels round

My kids go to a small local independent school and i hope i am not one of those 'snob' parents people are talking about.

Dh (an engineer) and i were put off the local state school when he asked about the provision for science and the HT said 'oh, that's not really important' and moved away from the subject. It also had a reputation for bullying.

We found a wonderful school only 5 mins up the road set in 14 acres of grounds which they use to the full - wet autumn walks, winter snowmen, spring flower collages and summer picnics etc. The parents are all lovely - a mixture of people, yes some are a lot more wealthy than us with horses, trips to London theatres etc but others are scrapping the fees together because it is the best school for their child / lifestyle.

My dd is loving the small school and would have been lost in a big, anoynmouse junior school. Ds is getting the interactions and education he needs and both are VERY happy.

As others have said, you look at what is avialable and choose the best you can, but for us, at the moment, it is worth every penny.

willowcatkin - a well balanced viewpoint indeed. I would have been outraged at any school that thought that science is unimportant - I wonder if it is reflected in the results. I do think that my 2 are lucky to have had a genuine choice between 3 decent state secondaries within a 4 mile radius. Your children's school sounds lovely.

"it's a myth that the academic schools pressuise the children"

No. It's not a myth at all in my personal experience.

You can buy your way out of some problems for your kids via private education, but it is foolish not to recognise that this also buys them in to a whole new set of problems caused by a private school education

There is a lot of prejuduce against kids from private schools - both socially and in terms of admission to higher education

mm I've had lunch with someone agonising over whether Eton (for his son who did to in the end) ruins your job prospects so yes I know all about that. I think on balance certainly with day schools you're advantaged, not disadvantaged.

I don't think the univesrities do prejudice private school children. My children's schools have close contacts with tutors at universities and they have also not noticed any pattern of more girls or boys being rejected at all. I think it's a bit of an urban myth.

Anyway schools differ. May be some do pressurise and we've just been lucky or perhaps my children are just too happy go lucky even to notice pressure when it's there. Or perhaps it's like stress - some people are stressed over having to choose eggs or toast for breakfast and others deal with multinational business sales without feeling any pressure.

It's that getting internal resources to deal with things bit right with children, stability, love, values at home. (I was rather selectively quoted earlier on the thread by the way).

But I don't resile from saying that in the round, on the whole, good academic day schools like Manchester Grammar, the Perse etc probably do best for the child who is that way inclined academically and in terms of school hobbies and clubs and just generally being with children your kind of IQ level. I was so isolated at school. I got the best A levels results in the school, scholarships etc and I don't say that to show off. I would have loved to be in a class where I didn't haev my essays read out to the class, where I had someone who might be interested in talking about university or anything of reasonable interest and even if the school had had a choir.

Interesting choice by my psychiatrist father... I was quite shy and a year young when we moved to that school. He thought it's better to be best of the worst than worst of the best. That's not bad psychology really, is it? I certainly would never go back on my life at all and say I wish XYZ had been done differently as it's pointless and it hasn't worked out too badly in the end but it was isolating. Hard isn't it? My brother would say his school, Newcastle royal grammar was too male/ bullying/rough I'm sure although he had all the choirs,orchestras, clubs and better teaching my sister and I didn't get in our very small girls private school. I've just felt the bigger schools like my daughters went to give you more of a chance to find people you like - whether you want to be a teenage goth, a professional anorexic, a music genius or maths champion, an ace debater, a county sportswoman, a complete nerd, cool or uncool - bigger schools give you the ability to find a niche with others like you.

Glad to see someone else think schools grounds matter.... although it wasn't my main point.

lupo I really, really hope that you can get some insight into your dilemma but I really do wonder if that is the case after all this

lupo, I haven't read the debate at all, just wanted to say that dd went to a local private mixed school in reception and year 1: reception was fine, but we became very disillusioned in year 1, as the class was simply too small (11 children, of which only 3 girls), the new head was weak and dd who is well behaved and smart (sorry if boasting, but she is) was left to her own devices as the teacher concentrated on the 'trouble makers'. We took her out in year 2 and home edded until this year. She has started at a girls junior private school which is further away from us but absolutely perfect for her, she is relaxed, happy, confident and has plenty of friends, and I get on well with the other parents.
I must say I was rather anti-private and very anti-single sex education at first, but visiting our local state schools, a few private schools, talking to friends, I have slowly changed my mind about all this. But I also know it's not just about private against state schools, it's more than that. Good luck, make sure you see lots of schools before you make your final decision and don't underestimate the influence a head has on his/her school!

X - You can't say that it's a myth that private schools pressurise the children. The point I was making was that some do, some don't.
They each have a different emphasis and some will prove excellent for a less academic child. On the other hand, I know a number of very 'average' children who are kept at school for prep till 5 each evening and have to attend on Saturday mornings. Most of them bite their nails to the quick.

True. Some do pressurise and some parents think pressure is good and some children could do with a kick up the backside and a huge lot more pressure. Pressure good or bad is another debate entirely. Also depends on the school too. I found my daughters schools in juniors with senior parts most got into less pressured, whereas schools like my sister's twins' school which is preparing them for competitive exams at 7 when everyone leaves, the parents are paying there so the children can get into good schools at 7 so obviously you expect quite a bit of homework and pressure. It's why you go to those feeder pre preps. In some ways boys sitting exams at 13 are probably at a better point than at 11. Girls always did better at the 11+ and are a year or more ahead. So the prep school model of putting on the more pressure at age 13 may be quite wise.

Staying at school to do homework until 5 can mean your evenings at home are lovely and relaxed. Saturday morning school may be better than Saturdays in front of the TV if it also means you've had 1 or 2 afternoons a week purely playing sports too....

Anyway parents have choices which is good. What is a shame is parents who don't know about schools who think spanking new "technology college" or specialist science place which is a gimmick and the A level results are still pathetic is great. The vast number of expensive changes in schools in the state sector seem to have been a lot of window dressing and a lot of money wasted to little advantage.

I'm right with you on that one! Did you know that to be a Maths college a school has also to be a Computing college? So one of the schools my (Science minded) children could've gone to is a 'Maths & Computing College' even though only 39% of the children achieve 5 or more A*-C GCSEs.
MAD!

There is a type of "pressure" we observe at some schools, where they get obsessed by the statistics.
Rather than let kids give up on subjects for which thry have no aptitude, they work harder on them.
If that is a "critical" subject like basic numeracy or literacy that is of course good.
But forcing a kid to do extran (say) French when they have no real apttitude for languages strikes me as a bad thing.

fp, a lot of those Blair names are meaningless. Contrast a proper music school like Chethams or the Purcell school with say one of these so called specialist state music schools. It's a joke.

DC, I thought they'd be more interested in the not so clever or bone idle children giving up subjects so that the record all As score are not upset. What I like is schools like Eton and others which aren't too bothered and cope with lower league table positions. They know they're good and the schools that let children sit exams early or do a different kind of exam which won't then be on the league tables but the school committed to the children doesn't care about that as they know they'll always be in the top 20 anyway.

A simple answer to the original poster's simple question. No.

Find the best state school you can. If you want to, spend the money on holidays, books, music lessons. Some private schools provide a very good education - some are cr*p. Ditto state schools. Look past the pretty uniforms of one and the scruffy sweatshirts of the other. Are the children bright eyed and bouncy? Is there a happy buzz of purposeful activity? Can you hear laughter? Is there lots of recent work on the walls?( Check the dates - it could be last years!) Would you be happy to spend your days there? If yes to all of these questions, then you've found the right place.

HURRAH for curlew - agree 100%

On the subject of the OP (remember that? )! One factor to consider in the choice of school is the following: I have a very good friend whose sons go to a 9,500 quid a year prep which feeds its own academic secondary. The thing that makes me smile is how much education she, personally is undertaking and overseeing at home! I mean, we're talking 30 mins reading aloud, 20 mins maths, 10 mins spelling, and 20 mins music practice EVERY evening! For an 8 and 6 year old! And really, with 2 similarly aged and average sons of my own, I KNOW hers aren't THAT bright so I ask myself why one would deprive children of- well, really, their childhood IMHO just to 'get them ahead'. Surely it's like training animals? Put in enough time and sure, you'll almost certainly see results but can that REALLY be called education? Or just training? Also, a second but I feel valid point is I'm disturbed by how many people I know who have children in expensive private schools can afford it because one of them, usually the father, works RIDICULOUS hours then collapses in a stupor on the sofa when they are home. Is that really worth it? I don't know. It wouldn't be for us, but then, to put my cards on the table, we're NHS workers so there's no chance of us ever having to cross the private/state bridge!!
Finally, I do have to add my friend has occasionally 'let the cat out of the bag' about her motives, claiming her boys' school provides 'a world class education' and casually mentioning that such and such an issue wouldn't be troubling her boys 'once they reach the upper echelons of society' WOT?? God, I'd PAY those boys to announce, at 18 they were off to join the circus... the look on my friend's face would be priceless! My point is I guess Xenia, (assuming 'she' isn't a troll!) is at least stating EXACTLY what product she thinks she's buying albeit somewhat gracelessly.

There are easier ways to be socially mobile, if you like that kind of thing (in either direction) than going to private/state schools.

On the evening attention/work isn't that interesting? I would be appalled at parents who didn't expect their primary school children to be doing at least some of that stuff. Mine are 8. They get home at 4.15 and they have hours to do what they like but we also snuggle up in bed and they read from a reading book every night. I see that as a lovely thing to do with them. It's not nasty horrible work. It's enjoying books. Also usually it means the parent gives the child some attention rather than child just having an extra 45 minutes of TV so it's not exactly time taken from constructive play in the real world.

Music practice - music is fun to learn. Mine don't practice every day.

So what you describe as being appalled by is actually a usual middle class norm actually and parents can be appalled that other parents wouldn't expect their chdilren to be having fun reading, playing classical music and yes knuckling down to learning some spellings (ours have spellings once a week) - does them good. I think a lot of it depends on the personality of the parent or whoever is looking after them when they do the homework. Some parents make it a sort of nasty cross time. Others it's not a battle ground, just someething you're doing. One of mine in bed last night (not the better speller) wasn't doing spellings at all at the time, interrupted the Captain Underpants book I was reading (thank goodness - they're so hard to read out loud) to start spelling a whole load of words just for fun. I doubt the enthusiasm will last but I don't think that amount of music and homework is a problem for primary school children. Don't they get homework in state schools?

Of course they get homework in state schools - you're making yourself seem like a being from another planet again, X!

Mine are yrs 7 & 8 - they usually receive 40 mins to an hour each day, plus an occasional project to be completed over time.
Their primary school offered peripatetic music tuition - choice of violin, cello, sax, guitar, clarinet, oboe, trumpet or trombone.
Mine learned violin at primary school - their choice not mine - they came home waving the letter begging to be allowed to take up an instrument.
At secondary school ds2 has continued with violin - ds1 changed to French Horn (sounds like rabid bull elephant rampaging round the play room).
I encourage them to practise 20 mins per evening because I reckon that if we're stumping up 300 quid a term for music lessons then they need to show a little commitment.
They sometimes have a bit of a whinge about it, but that is more than counteracted by the sheer glee of coming home from school with the music from the Harry Potter films, which they're going to play at the Christmas concert.
The school arranges many extra-curricular trips - eg the sixth form have the opportunity to visit the jungles of Ecuador for 3 weeks.
It's a bog standard comprehensive school, but achieves excellent results. I would agree that this is partly because of the commitment shown by parents - but it's MOST parents - not just the 'middle classes'.

Xenia,

I think I should pass you a ladder to help you out of the hole that you have dug for yourself. I went to an excellent private girls school and I did part of a PGCE in secondary science and taught in a state school.

On the issue of special needs, most special needs do not affect the learning of other children. However children with emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD) can cause massive problems. There are very few special state schools left for EBD children and everyone including the ebd chidlren suffers when these children are plonked in a mainstream school.

I spent 3 days at an EBD school. The classes at the EBD school had 7 boys in with at least one LSA and a teacher. The staff had the time to help the children with their behaviour as well as teach them. Some of the staff had masters in special ed as well as PGCE. The problem with EBD schools is that they are expensive for the tax payer. (No one thinks about the saving for the tax payer of reforming these kids before they become criminals and need a prison place)

In a mainstream secondary school these troubled children are often given to the weakest/ least experienced teacher to teach as senior teachers have pick of the classes. Bottom sets are not as small as special school classes. To make matters worse children with moderate intellectual impairment often find themselves in the same sets as EBD children even though some EBD children are bright. I think that children with moderate special needs would be better off in a seperate class to EBD children (or in some cases, seperate special schools)

My son is doing well at his state school. There is a child who is intellectually impaired, but she has her own learning support assistant. However I think if this little girl did not have one to one support then other children would suffer.

Excellent post, frances.