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.

Certainly some of the most valuable things that my DC have experienced at school are the off piste opportunities (both academic and non academic) IMVHO.

Preparing for exams has its place, of course. But fortunately there has (thus far) been plenty of time for other stuff.

"You said money (private school) cannot buy talent. Ergo talent is inherent. That is surely a limitation?"

Money can't buy talent. But I don't see talent as something you either "have" or "have not". I think everyone has different talents and different degrees of talent. Money can help to nurture whatever talent you have, but you're mistaken to assume that private schooling can automatically do that better than many state schools. And even if the talent is in something extra-curricular that your state school doesn't offer then the money saved on private fees can be used to compensate for that.

wotafaff

I agree that depending on the level of talent a child could be no better off in a private rather than state school.
However, in some cases neither are able to provide a good enough/ suitable enough education for the child.
In my dd school for e.g she believes the less ambitious, determined and motivated students will go into medicine, law, and attend Oxbridge.
It depends on the school and the child.

"It depends on the school and the child"

Exactly, and it also depends on the parent's values - so there's no one answer to the state versus private debate - both have something to offer to both parent and child.

So, to summarise, the "point when going private is not worth it" is not just a financial decision, and anyone who assumes that "everyone would go private if they could afford to" is simply wrong.

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

Very true, however, a child might want to study Mandarin and Russian rather than being restricted to french or German. It doesn't have to be about studying more languages but having a wider choice of languages to choose from.

Of course good private schools have a wider range of subjects and extra curricular activities than state schools. They have more time, more money and select their pupils.

A private school may offer lots of languages, but agree that they can only take as many GCSE's as any other school.
In addition the offer of 4 languages is no use if the child wants to do Maths, statistics and treble science.

My friends dd went to a state school and has 5 languages at A* she took 3 of them outside school, in addition to private music lessons on 2 instruments.

Not all private schools offer better/ more extracurricular activities than state schools. Once again, it depends on the school.
Some state schools are fantastic others not so good. The same can be said for private schools, some aren't any better than a good state school.

What fun = page 11 - private schools a cancer on society. I would argue the opposite - something Britain gets so right people from all over the globe wan their children educated in those brilliant schools, some of the best on the planet, something of which we as a nation shoudl be proud which are so good at educating children that they lead to 80% of the judiciary and many other high % of successful people having attend them. A British triumph.

DeoGratias. if I didn't know better I would think you were deliberately trying to wind people up. There are indeed some incredible UK private schools but I suspect most people would rather be proud of a state education system that it free and accessible for all.

The fact that such a high percentage of the judiciary were privately schooled is not something this country should be proud off. As detailed by the Judiciary Appointments Commision in its report [[https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/news/accelerating_change_finalrev_0.pdf JUDICIAL DIVERSITY:
ACCELERATING CHANGE]] (2014?) The English and Welsh Judiciary is more than a bit of an old boys club (my words) the vast majority of senior members of the judiciary went to private school and Oxbridge and are male and white . It's about as un-diverse as you can get.

If money's no object, you can achieve all sorts of results and make everything look sparkly too. I'm ashamed of the way some of our great independent schools, which used to teach and practise the virtue of thrift, now aim exclusively for the super rich.

On another thread I quoted Dean Colet, founder of SPS, on the subject of covetousness, which he considered an abomination. No head of an independent school could exprress such sentiments with a straight face today.

bobo One aspect of value in education might arguably be:

• a good education leaves DC able to use Latin phrases like "a fortiori"
• an better education leaves them able to use them correctly, because they will understand what they mean
• an excellent education leaves them able to resist making points like this one.

It's hard to get an excellent education for girls. I didn't have one.

Was it not Bobochic in some discussion about the purpose of classical languages saying that she had a very high level of education (and attainement) in Latin ?

I agree that individual child and individual circumstances make the choice of school a very personal one.

We started out the first few years at the local primary. Apart from the fact that my DD1 was desperately unhappy, I found it impossible to ferry four children to so many activities, they were shattered, grumpy and despite being two of us doing it, we just felt we didn't have much of a life.

Our local school does not offer any extracurricular at all, so that's just down to where we live - before going private we looked at all the other state schools around here and none of them offered any either. It's great that many do, but they are not accessible to us.

Even though our children now come home an hour later, they still have more time than they had before being ferried around. However I do appreciate that if we only had one or two children it would have felt more manageable and that is why it is a purely subjective choice.

I don't understand all this talk of private schools having extra long days impeding on the child's social life. My DS goes to a highly regarded private school and his day is 9am until 3.40pm. He is home before 4.30 most days unless he chooses to stay for extra curricular (which would mean a late finish at any school).

docend, that's right. The best education means you are polite, kind and also despite the comment above imbued with values that do indeed see covetousness as unlikely to lead to happiness. Despite what the other poster suggests above the private schools are not suggesting greed is good. They want people who can lead, ensure a better country. We produce some really good teenagers from private schools and because we are British we prefer not to shout from the roof tops about this huge British success. We are too English to do that, bit it remains a fact. The private schools are a triumph and ensure important roles in the UK have good people performing work well helping the UK to remain one of the best nations on the planet. The private schools play a large part in that and I salute them for doing so.

State schools can copy the better elements of them if they want to.

Pass me a bucket.

" They want people who can lead, ensure a better country. We produce some really good teenagers from private schools "

Just wondering- do you actually not realise how offensive many of your posts are, or do you just not care?

Don't state schools wnat to produce pupils who can lead and ensure a better country are modest and don't think greed is good?
Why is it offensive to say private schools may do those thigns? Are they wrong things? I think they are great things and I would be happy if someone confirms state schools also aim for that. I genuinely think there are lots of good state schools out there and assumed they were hoping to produce future leaders and the like. If they don't that is terrible.

Ah. It's just don't care. I did think that was it. Not sure why I expected anything else.

I think this government is quite keen for state education to produce useful worker bees (who like to spend their free time shopping).

The endless top down pressure to devalue the arts, classics, MFL etc is working well.

SheGot - I don't think the position of the current UK government is in any shape or form unique. It's been working well for a while, with perhaps a special mention for Berlusconi's Italy.

True bobo but it's really getting quite depressing here now.

Not only the government's obvious agenda (which you kinda expect from this shower) but the willingness of the people to accept it/not question it.

It's like Brave New World.

I bought myself a copy of Brave New World to reread (I read it first at school c. 1981) in 2002. The same issues were bothering me then - different time/country.

Does anyone read BNW at school anymore?