At what point is going private NOT worth it?

[lexlees]

I was chatting to a friend recently and we got chatting about schools. Their only daughter goes to a top private school and it is a real financial strain on them. They reckon they spend 40% of their net family income on school fees and extras. All her wages go towards the school fees and even then only covers 2/3 of it - the remaining third comes from her husband's salary.

From my perspective I don't see how it is worth it. She maintained that it is not unusual. They just want their child to have 'every advantage' because both she and her husband went private.

Their girl is bright but didn't qualify for any bursary or scholarship and failed to get into the selective state school (they did try all three). Although the girl was top of her class in her state primary, she now feels so much pressure because she hasn't gotten an 'A' in anything yet. She is now no longer the bright one and it took two terms to make friends. I'd love to say she is a lovely girl, but honestly, she is an ungrateful and mean brat (she used to beat up/be cruel to my ds every time they were alone - then lie about it - hence I don't bring my ds anymore to their house).

They are putting minimal money into pensions and have only 'one term's worth' of savings. They haven't had a holiday for two to three years, never eat out and hardly buy stuff (except for stuff for their daughter - so she doesn't feel 'left out' at school) as they have a mortgage as well. They also don't have parental financial support or expect much of any inheritance either. I feel like my friend has changed into some penny pinching miser, always working out how to save pennies and she is just worn out from a low paid job!

It got me wondering if other people are just making ends meet to send a child or children private. Is she correct that it is normal? At what point does it become NOT worth it.

If you deny people the opportunity to enrich their DCs' lives with all sorts of learning that state education will never be able to provide, you weaken the cultural knowledge within that society. Gradually, people know less and less as the opportunity to develop and exchange is reduced. You are advocating a vicarious form of censorship.

said my bit - go back to the debates about whether it's worth going private vs having the 5k a year holiday or 4x4.

Actually, I disagree, SheGot. I don't think that the private sector in the UK offers great value for money these days from an academic perspective - GCSEs and A-levels are the same for everyone and pretty limiting (scarily so for some subjects). Where the private sector comes into its own is co-curricular and enrichment which are pretty much illimited in some schools. Private schools can, and do, start to resemble a sort of luxury country club in which there are also lessons. Obviously not all schools, but I am not convinced that this is a good trend.

Well bobo your genuine concern for how I spend my cash is greatly appreciated.

I know you have only my DC's interests at heart.

I'm not remotely interested in how you spend your cash, SheGot. Stop being so self-absorbed and thinking every conversation is about you ;)

So whose cash are you worried about bobo?

I'm interested in value-for-money in education: where is it? how do we achieve it, individually or as a society? When parents choose to spend a lot of money on school, which is a package, what is the real value they derive for themselves and their DC? And so on...

Personally, we spend a hell of a lot of money on our DCs and I do an awful lot of research to work out where we want to spend it, more particularly because there is always an opportunity cost (most particularly of their time) for any choice we make.

I should probably add that, right now, DSS1 is sending in his masters' applications. Working out which is the right course is one thing but then you have to factor in the wildly different course fees. Why? It's very hard to justify the differences. So we are doing a lot of head scratching on that issue.

"all sorts of learning that state education will never be able to provide"

Like what BoboChic?

p.s. It would have to be something I couldn't provide for my children myself with the money and time (spent not working) I save by not going private.

Jimmyjoe do you teach at this university where 70% of the students are privately educated?
Given the bile and anger of your posts, accusing other posters of being sociopathic, you must be boiling with fury for most of your time at work considering the high number of privately educated students you have to deal with.
Do you take it out on them?
Wouldn't it be better to get a job where you are under less provocation?

wotafaff - I'm not discounting things that parents can purchase outside school.

ah come on, l love every single one of them. all great kids, almost to a T.

i blame, in large, the game, not the players. and no, i don't teach.

I still think it is sociopathic for some parents to just blindly accept that private education is the Good and Right thing though..:)

"all sorts of learning that state education will never be able to provide"

Perhaps you mean the sort of thing I witnessed in my local supermarket last week. Some kids from a local private school were offering to pack people's bags for a £1 to fun their "charity" trip to somewhere in South America to help "build a school". Their challenge was to raise a certain amount of the cost of the trip themselves. So they were asking people, most of whom were not at all well off, to help fund their big trip when their parents could have easily funded it, probably outright, and if not then certainly from the money they would save from one term of fees.

In fact the school would probably be built much more quickly and efficiently if they just sent the money direct to a charity based in South America using local workers.

That sort of self-indulgent activity doesn't impress me.

"I'm not discounting things that parents can purchase outside school"

So maybe that's the answer to OP's question about the point at which paying to go private isn't worth it for people who can nevertheless afford it. That point is reached when ...

a) You trust that your child can reach their academic potential at your local state school.
b) You trust in your own ability to provide for their extra-curricular enrichment needs.
c) You believe you can make a positive contribution to your local state school by supporting it, thereby helping the lives of others who could never hope to afford private education.

This sounds like sending the child to private for snob reasons (must give them the best), rather than a sensible consideration of

wot I really don't think you can come up with a formula that answers the value question.

We are all different. We all want different things. We all have different priorities. We all live different lives.

If I find my DC's school worth the huge fees, then it is, surely worth it? It can't not be worth it to me, just because someone else wouldn't value it.

If the child is as unpleasant as the OP says, then arguably her parents are failing her. The key thing is for a child to be happy and to develop a personality that will enable them to make friends, now and as adults. For a particular child the local state school may be more likely to achieve that than a private one. What is the best fit for that child?

Yes SheGot it is a very personal decision, but it becomes a more public issue when people evangelise about their personal decisions, bolstering them by persuading others to make the same choices. People do that on both sides of the debate though.

The one thing I love about the private/state debate is that no matter how much money people pump into their child's education, they can't buy time and they can't buy talent.

For example, a private school may offer a choice of 4 languages rather than 2, but unless they can also provide a Hermione-esque timeturner the DCs will still only be able to study approximately the same number of subjects as their peers in a state school - if they study more they will compromise their extra-curricular enrichment, and vice versa. Plus, if they don't have a talent/love for languages they're no more likely to do well at them than their peers in an outstanding state school.

So long as we make sure that state schools are well equipped to nurture talent, and make the best possible use of time and other resources, there is no reason why they can't compete favourably with most private schools.

wot I think Brits are far too bound up in the idea of inherent talent. That these things are set.

Most of us can get reasonably good at a lot of things with the opportunity to try, the right support and the will to learn. I don't know if my DC are any more talented than other DC (I very much doubt it) but they're pretty good at quite a few things.

How did that happen?

First, they had the opportunities. They may not be able to take each one to the next level (as you say, time constraints) but they were able to give them all a try.

And thinking about it, they are probably able to do more than others because money does in some ways buy time. Opportunities in house are far more time efficient than ferrying DC from A to B (I speak from bitter experience of out of school sports).

I totally agree with sheGot*

My dd has an inherent talent and a gift. However, as parents we have nurtured her gift and found the best opportunities for her, and she has worked very hard when many of her friends put in the bare minimum.

I don't think it necessarily takes a lot of money to do this, of course it can cost a fortune if you want it to.
No state school or private could offer our dd an education to fit, so for her it's either the school she attends now or back to H.ed, both have their advantages and disadvantages, but both are a good fit.

What suits one individual doesn't necessarily suit another, that's why we need choice in education provision not closing down certain routes or sectors.

"I think Brits are far too bound up in the idea of inherent talent"

I don't know if there's anything British about it. I can believe that private school sometimes instil a confidence at being better at something than you actually are, and that confidence can carry people through a lot of situations. Maybe that's the main commodity on offer.

"money does in some ways buy time. Opportunities in house are far more time efficient than ferrying DC from A to B"

Our state school does have a very rich extra-curricular programme. All teachers run at least one club and there are outside coaches who come in too. The activities are offered free, but parents are invited to make voluntary contributions to the pot, thereby widening participation for those families that couldn't otherwise afford it.

For other activities, outside of school, we enjoy not "ferrying" but watching and/or participating in activities, and have time to do so because we have good work-life balance - in some cases DH and I have got involved in coaching or other supportive tasks (again helping others, not just our own).

For other activities DS1 takes himself there on the bus, fostering independence.

Many privately educated DCs around here spend an hour or more commuting to their schools at each end of the day, which doesn't buy them any time at all.

It is a quite British, you know.

The idea that people should know their limitations and that those limitations are often immutable.

It seems to go hand in hand with the idea that many things are very difficult, requiring of special inherent talent. That those who disbelieve this are 'over achieving'.

"The idea that people should know their limitations and that those limitations are often immutable"

Well I'm British and I don't believe that. Perhaps you over-interpreted what I was saying.

You said money (private school) cannot buy talent.

Ergo talent is inherent. That is surely a limitation?

Private schools in England have more time and resources to drill DC in basic concepts. GCSEs and A-levels test pupils grasp of basic concepts. But, academically, the curricula are not going to develop talent. Extra-curricular activities, a fortiori those without the constraints of curriculum and standard tests, are much more likely to nurture talent.