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.

Apologies if this has already been said but OP I think you'll find a large proportion of parents never have more than a terms fees in savings.

"British state schools are full of them, Bertrand. The UK has one of the worst educated (in subject knowledge) teacher work forces in Europe"

Evidence?

Read the OECD literature, Bertrand, to get you started.

There's a lot of OECD literature- I'm sure many of us would welcome a pointer. I assume you have it at your fingertips?

I'm on a telephone right now so cannot do a search.

However, I think you would do well to try to research this matter independently, Bertrand. Would do you good

Yesterday, my apologies, rereading my post makes it sound that way. Your school experience sounds horrendous so I can totally understand why you don't want that for your kids.

I tend to flare up at the bright kids thing because I've heard it so often from this other woman and the way she talks you would think she was the only clever person in the world. So my apologies once again

BoboChic The UK has one of the worst educated (in subject knowledge) teacher work forces in Europe though other countries are catching up

I would be interested in seeing your source for this fact. Thanks :-)

Well, we certainly have a problem with a lot of schools not being able to get science and maths subject specialists.

No. I'll just rely on anecdata like everyone else. My children have never had a permanent teacher at secondary who wand not a graduate in the subject concerned. So, by the logic of this thread they all must be.

Not sure at all what you mean by "the logic of this thread". Quite a few people have contributed, with differing viewpoints.

Haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to say I LOVE my DS's state school. Couldn't be happier with it. He's happy and he's stretched and isn't surrounded by people with hang-ups so has his feet firmly on the ground.

Sending your kid to an independent doesn't just affect their life, but the lives of the next generation and beyond because they end up thinking state isn't good enough and condemn themselves to a life of stress to afford private fees. It's a vicious circle. Best option is the best state option you can get and do what you can to push up standards, whether that be as a Governor, or a PTA rep or 'just' a conscientious parent who supports the teachers and makes sure the DCs do their homework.

I'm sure where they send their 'ungrateful and mean brat' doesn't affect you Op.

We chose to send dd private this year and I can honestly say it's one of our better decisions.

If it came at a huge sacrifice of home life etc....then we wouldn't have chosen this route.

If we had been pleased with the primary school she was in we wouldn't have moved her. She struggled in a class of 32.

wota by that logic we shouldn't provide our DC with anything expensive ( homes, holidays etc) for fear they won't be able to offer it to their DC.

Or does it just apply to school ?

BertrandRussell

Are you saying that being a graduate in your teaching subject = good subject knowledge for GCSE / A level? I would not agree with that, if that is what you're saying.

Some teachers I know who are very recent Masters and PhD graduates (in maths & physics from very good universities) have told me they have to 'revise' for the A Level classes as it has been so long since they have encountered those topics. I imagine this would be a huge problem if you went in to teaching as a career change after having down your subject degree 10-15 years ago.

sheGot if homes/holidays and all things expensive are what ring your bell then you can afford a damn site more of them if you don't have to shell out for private school fees.

The thing with subject knowledge is that the further you get in your subject, the less likely you are to ever teach your specialism, so actually good subject knowledge is a bit of a red herring in many ways. English teachers are required to teach both language and literature, but it's very rare for someone to have an undergraduate degree, or even an A-level in both subjects. A history teacher might well never have studied some of the periods they teach. And that's fine, because what you need in terms of subject knowledge is the ability to learn more than your students, and to know what a hood question/answer at undergraduate level in that subject would be, even if you have t done the course. I have never studied Hopkins or Hardy, but it wouldn't take me long to brush up my knowledge enough to get someone through the A-level syllabus or to provide more of a challenge for the very brightest students. It would, however, take a great deal of skill for me to understand exactly what the examiners required and to communicate that effectively to each pupil while passing on the subject knowledge and making sure that all the pupils were interested. Subject knowledge is the easy part of teaching.

"Are you saying that being a graduate in your teaching subject = good subject knowledge for GCSE / A level? I would not agree with that, if that is what you're saying."

So what are you expecting secondary school teachers to have? PhDs?

BertrandRussell

Not at all, I just don't think that possessing a degree is necessarily a reliable indicator of subject knowledge for teaching A levels / GCSE. AFAIK there are likely to be lots of teachers with different sorts of degrees in their subjects with poorer subject knowledge.

(Though I'm not claiming that subject knowledge is the be all and end all.)

So how would you expect a teacher to demonstrate subject knowledge? Certainly by A level, I wouldn't necessarily expect a teacher to be able to answer every question off the top of their head. Even at GCSE, a history or English graduate won't necessarily have covered all the periods or read all the books on the syllabus. Personally I would rate a teacher who said "I don't know- this is how we are going to find out".

At his absurdly expensive independent school in London, my DS was taught by numerous brilliant so called "unqualified" teachers (i.e. without a PGCE or QTS), some of whom did not have degrees in the subjects they taught him (eg physicists teaching maths).

I would say it is worth making financial sacrifices to have access to "unqualified" teachers with outstanding intellects (and communication skills), who are simply not allowed to work in state schools, much as many of them would like to.

However, those who have read my posts on
similar threads will not be surprised to hear me sympathise with OP. School fees have got ridiculously expensive, particularly in London. It need not be like this. For example, heads don't need to be paid five to ten times a teacher's salary. Their predecessors would be shocked by such greed.

Unfortunately, private education is becoming even more of a luxury than it used to be. Heads and governors are losing touch with reality. They obviously don't understand how hard it is for people on salaries and without inheritances to pay the astronomic fees.

And they don't care about social diversity, otherwise they would do more about keeping fees down and less of a song and dance about bursaries which, in reality, so often get consumed by the "formerly rich" who hit hard times half way through school.

I went to a grammar school in an upper middle class part of town and found that it is not that pleasant being one of the poorest at school. That reason alone would be enough for me not to send a child of mine to a private school if I had to make lots of sacrifices to do so.

And my other fear would be having to take them out because my financial situation had changed for the worse. It is such a worry to find them a school where they are happy, the last thing I would want is to have to take them out because of money problems.

I live in Mexico, so my last concern is propably very country-related, but unfortunately here the children I've known who've gone to private schools believe they are better than other people and that gets right up my nose.

granolamuncher - indeed, give me an outstanding intellect with great communication skills over a mediocre-degree -QTS anyday.

The issue is not so much about schools choosing whether to have teachers with great subject knowledge/teaching qualifications etc.

The issue is that we have an undeniable teacher retention crisis in the UK which is leading to teachers being forced to cover subjects/modules that are outside their remit. Schools have little option but to recruit what there is available as opposed to what they think it best.

Nicky Morgan naturally denies this is a problem. I see she has supporters on this thread.

If schools are under an obligation to only employ teachers with QTS, as many state schools are, that greatly reduces the pool of candidates from whom they can choose. It seems ludicrous to me that QTS is non-negotiable but appropriate subject knowledge is not.