Private, state or grammar school?

[Vb20015]

I'm having real difficulties making a decision about our daughters future.. We live in an area where schools aren't that great. We have one primary school that is outstanding and secondary schools aren't good here.

We could stretch to a private school but this would mean we can only afford one child. I would really like to have another and I'm feeling like if I do, I may be depriving our daughter of the best chance in life. My husband is favourable of private school. We could aim for a grammar school but there is no guarantee of a place regardless of how good her grades are as these places are fiercely fought for and and that point I will be too old to have another baby.

I really need advice please

Private education is no guarantee of absolute happiness. But then neither is having siblings.

At best I have a fairly tepid relationship with my siblings. Birthday cards and a get together at Christmas is about it.

And I can look at plenty of friends and family who are pretty similar to be honest. And that's overlooking the ones who are at daggers drawn much of the time.

I've had the same dilemma but going from 3 to 4 children. In the end we decided to pull out oldest child from private school as wish to have 4th child outweighed private education. We decided that the money we would have spent on private education would go on extra curricular activities etc. and we would focus on our kids education more as parents. I felt very relieved and happier with the decision once we made it - where as when i had signed up to private education (and paid fees) I didn't feel good about the decision and it was playing on my mind.

The Sutton Trust, who do a lot of high quality research into outcomes associated with different types of schooling, have found that attending a private school results in an individual earning approximately 57K more between the ages of 26 and 42, compared to someone of a similar background and with similar intelligence test scores aged ten, who attended a state school.

Given that it costs about 70K a year to put a child through a private secondary school I'd say that's not a wonderful return on your investment.....

We have three children.

They go to state schools and they will always go to state schools.

I still think bert -'you are being disagreeable. What matters to the OP does not matter to you. It really is as simple as that.

When we were looking at secondary schools for DD we looked at both private and state. DD passed the entrance exam for the private school and was offered a place. As our earnings were way below the maximum level for obtaining a bursary we applied for one. The bursary was refused so DD went to state school with the option of us being able to afford to pay for tutors should the need arise.

The state school we sent her to has moved from satisfactory to good, and DD took 2 GCSEs at 14 and achieved an A in both of them.

The crunch year will be when she goes back into year 11. DD has already said that she has no confidence in a couple of her teachers so we will be interviewing potential tutors over the next week or so in order to give DD the boost that she needs.

Would also make the point that it's really important to be clear about what's meant by a 'bad school'.

The behaviour of the middle-classes in the UK in flocking to concentrate their children together in educational environments which largely exclude disadvantaged children - be it in state schools which select by religion, post-code, academic attainment at 11, or in private schools which select by parental income - is responsible for the existence of schools which have become educational ghettoes for the least educationally engaged sector of society. They can hardly blame the teachers and leadership teams at these schools for the nature of the establishment. Silk purses and sows ears and all that.

"Look, I was privately educated (started in a state school) and I will always say private private private. A grammar school may help her achieve similar grades but she won't have that private school shine about her."

I'd suggest that the 'private school shine' has fuck all to do with teaching at these establishments and everything to do with the sense of privilege, entitlement and confidence you get from feeling like part of an elite.

"I still think bert -'you are being disagreeable."

I think what's 'disagreeable' is implying that attending a state school results in a child with educated parents and living in a loving and supportive household having poor life chances.

But it's not, is it? It's saying that she feels private school is something she wants her children to have.

I have limited my family size according to affordability. Most of us do. We all will have different ideas as to what constitutes that affordability. It's bedrooms for me. I wouldn't expect my DC to share and I wouldn't have more DCs than bedrooms. Am I saying that children who DO share have poor life choices - no. I am saying I personally wouldn't!

You feel your children can't have an acceptable quality of life if they don't have their own rooms.

The OP feels state educated children don't have an acceptable quality of life.

That isn't what I said or what the OP said Nicole and well you know it.

You could twist that into absolutely everything and wonder why no one has eight or nine children but most of us have the children we can afford.

'Afford' means different things to different people. I won't engage further.

We all draw our own lines in the sand for what we want to provide our DC. It's entirely subjective.

If people are happy with what they're able to provide, if it has produced happy successful children, then cool. But why feel the need to draw the line for others?

Why try to rubbish what someone else feels has value for their DC? Or try to stop them providing it?

I think limiting your family to the number you an afford is sensible.

If you are dead set on private education and funding university/house deposits and this limits your family to one child - if you are genuinely happy with that decision then I think that's fine.

FWIW as my kids come to the upper end of their prep school, I honestly believe we made a mistake. Although they have been very happy where they are, I believe they would have been equally happy at the local primary school. And I believe they would have done as well academically. It's an expensive mistake.

I didn't think secondary moderns existed any more. Isn't it comprehensive now?

I'm glad I don't live in Kent.

"Or try to stop them providing it?"

Who is doing this?

The behaviour of the middle-classes in the UK in flocking to concentrate their children together in educational environments which largely exclude disadvantaged children - be it in state schools which select by religion, post-code, academic attainment at 11, or in private schools which select by parental income - is responsible for the existence of schools which have become educational ghettoes for the least educationally engaged sector of society. They can hardly blame the teachers and leadership teams at these schools for the nature of the establishment.

Agree totally

And also think it is overthinking in the extreme not to have another child