Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

At what point is going private NOT worth it?

710 replies

lexlees · 05/11/2015 14:31

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.

OP posts:
SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 08:38

molio they're not remotely innovative. Common sense I think.

So why oh why do schools refuse (and it is a refusal) to implement such basic things?

Molio · 12/11/2015 08:44

Yes I've just read your post. I thought you were referring to extra curricular or unusual things DaMoves, not that sort of stuff.

Well, obviously some schools have better leadership teams than others and some listen to parents and pupils more than others. But at the end of the day they are leadership teams.

SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 08:44

As for accents, I love them.

They feature hugely in my writing and it's often commented on that this is what I do best (capture the essence of them, which is different to using them verbatim - a mistake many writers make IMVHO).

I love the fluidity of language generally and its ever evolving nature. I am a huge opponent of the notion that there is a correct, unchanging way to speak/write.

But I'd be lying if I said that RP/MP doesn't oil the wheels in some spheres. I regularly visit the BBC up in Salford and the irony is that I'm usually the only one with a northern accent.

SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 08:48

molio what I don't understand (and I'm not getting any closer to understanding, despite the number of state school visits I've made) is why some SLTs make decisions which are clearly against their pupils' interests.

It is baffling!

BoboChic · 12/11/2015 08:49

It would be very easy to legislate for some of those things (with which I agree, across the board), SheGot. I'm not sure why the hell schools are allowed to get away with not offering a pupil the full range of academic and facilitating subjects at GCSE. No-one should have to choose between History and Geography or between Sciences.

BertrandRussell · 12/11/2015 08:51

" I'm not sure why the hell schools are allowed to get away with not offering a pupil the full range of academic and facilitating subjects at GCSE. No-one should have to choose between History and Geography or between Sciences."

What do you mean by "a full range"?

Molio · 12/11/2015 08:53

DaMoves I guess the SLTs in question might have a different take from you on what their pupils' interests actually are. Or the same SLT might simply be crap. Members of SLTs aren't going to be universally high quality, sadly.

BoboChic · 12/11/2015 08:54

It's qualified in my post, Bertrand!

BoboChic · 12/11/2015 08:55

I don't think that SLTs ought to be given the privilege/responsibility of denying their pupils access to academic subjects.

Molio · 12/11/2015 08:56

Yes, full range costs money. Not all kids are going to suit a purely academic route. But we're getting dangerously close to the selective argument again. These SLTs have to make choices withing a tight budget and have to serve a wide constituency on kids, usually.

BoboChic · 12/11/2015 08:56

There's something awfully bizarre about legislating for school attendance but not for content.

Molio · 12/11/2015 08:58

within not withing. Bad morning here!

BertrandRussell · 12/11/2015 08:58

Sorry- I thought that you were making separate points. So a full range would be history and geography and 3 sciences?

BoboChic · 12/11/2015 08:59

I was responding to SheGot's earlier point about those subjects.

BertrandRussell · 12/11/2015 09:00

Surely SLTs need the freedom to make the best choices for their individual school within the context of their budget?

SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 09:00

molio I concede that state schools simply do not have the budget to offer unlimited choice of subjects.

BertrandRussell · 12/11/2015 09:02

I'm still not clear about what "a full range of academic and facilitating subjects" means.

Molio · 12/11/2015 09:04

There's a clear trend towards triple science generally. Just need the specialist teachers now.

SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 09:05

In theory that's right bertrand SLT's should be responding to their cohort.

But in practice there are a lot of other factors in play. League tables. Existing vested interests. Flawed (I would say) educational ideology. Avaialbility of resources...

SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 09:07

molio yes.

I think the top down push of STEM must make it unconscionable to not offer triple soon.

A benefit. Though the STEMwards push has the converse impact on arts/humanities/MFL of course Sad.

Molio · 12/11/2015 09:08

League tables shouldn't drive practice and nor should budget. The latter might constrain the offering but shouldn't drive it.

SettlinginNicely · 12/11/2015 09:10

For me this is the best argument for grammar schools. UK high-schools aren't big enough to offer economic scale to cater to vocational students and academic students at the same. Once you look at the logistics of time-tabling and hiring all the different qualified teachers, one group gets short changed because the budget isn't limitless.

SheGotAllDaMoves · 12/11/2015 09:10

League tables are often the biggest driver of SLT decisions, in both sectors I fear.

Molio · 12/11/2015 09:10

Yes there's real resistance by some parents and pupils to triple science and within the context of pupils taking a reduced number of GCSEs, because of increased difficulty, that's an issue.

Molio · 12/11/2015 09:13

League tables are a bloody nuisance and one shouldn't kow tow to them.

Swipe left for the next trending thread