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.

I could wonder about this forever but it won't change the fact I can't afford private education. I'm a single mother and work full-time in a job that pays above the average for the area. Even if I could, there's only one private school and it's no better than the state alternative.

The big name most academic private schools have the greatest frequency of staff that would be at home in a university common room through qualifications and intelligence. Many of those there are able to teach well a cohort that are most like top university students by IQ and application. . However most teachers don't need higher level academic prowess in a subject to teach a more mixed cohort of DCs as long as they can teach it soundly and have other attributes that enable them to motivate their students. Those qualities are worth more money than is being currently paid teachers.

"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."

Oh, I know!. Hospitals have exactly the same problem. All these petty rules about only being allowed to employ qualified doctors............

That is a false analogy, Bertrand.

I am sorry if this has been mentioned already but, esp. as parents, I think we need to be aware about what makes a difference in terms of academic success and what we think makes a difference. I think we are too easily seduced by perceived advantages such as small class sizes and think we can buy those perceived advantages through private education. It is, of course, in the interest of private educators (profit-orientated business) to sell us that narrative of what results in academic success. This particulalrly worries me when I hear of people almost bankrupting themselves to buy these perceived advantages. The reality of what makes us academic is actually more complex.

Robert Plomin's work is massively interesting and important here. This Radio 4 programme is a great start www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0359ll1

An exert from the paper published in Nature:
Academic achievement at the end of compulsory education is of major societal interest and is critical for students because the exam results play a substantial role in making decisions about further education and employment. Furthermore, educational achievement has been shown to be an independent predictor of many life outcomes, including career success, health and even life expectancy. It is reasonable to assume that schools have a major effect on educational achievement, because children have to be taught, e.g., how to read and how to solve mathematical problems; however, children differ in their educational achievement within the same school and even the same classroom, indicating that factors other than school differences must be involved in individual differences in achievement. Twin studies have shown that educational achievement is highly heritable in early and middle school years; that is, individual differences in academic achievement are to a large extent (around 60%) explained by inherited differences in their DNA sequence. The heritability for academic achievement in core subjects is also substantial at the end of compulsory education in the UK.

Sorry I think I linked to a clip from the full programme - here is a link to teh full version www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j1qts

Bobochic - excellent subject knowledge does not make you a good teacher or even half-decent. I work in a RG University (vomit at that ludicrous classification but it seems to have currency on MN) and I can you point you in the direction of plenty of Profs. who are terrible tutors. There is a good reason why the HE sector has introduced teaching qualifications in the last few years (PGHCE and PCAP - though we can debate if they are fit for purpose).

There is a fundamental split between people who thing that anyone can be a teacher-often based on the fact that they taught their own child something once- and the people who think that teaching is a professional skill that must be learned like any other professional skill. And never the twain shall meet.

.. 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

Physics and maths are so closely entwined that there would be no reason why someone with a physics degree couldn't be a maths specialist in a state school. Yes they would need QTS, just as they would need a driving license to go out on the road alone, but given their outstanding intellect they should breeze through that, and in many cases can do their training "on the job".

My point is that lack of QTS is not the problem - lack of maths and physics teachers is the problem. Yes the private schools can grab the cream of the teaching crop because they have fewer entry hurdles, and maybe higher salaries, but also because their kids are easier to teach.

However, in my experience most academics send their own kids to state schools. I've got a PhD in physics myself, and send my kids to excellent state schools. I go in and do a bit of extracurricular stuff when I can, as do other parents with STEM backgrounds. A friend who did her PhD at the same time as me teaches physics in an expensive private school (part time to supplement her wages from the state sector, so yes she does have QTS), and having experienced both certainly isn't impressed enough to take advantage of a staff discount and move her own kids from a state school.

People think because they're paying they're getting something better, which isn't always the case.

The question is whether somebody can teach or not.

It's certainly a professional skill. The brilliant unqualified teachers at my DS's school (around 40% of the teaching staff) had that skill honed to a very high level indeed. None of their colleagues with QTS would deny that.

It's only comparatively recently (in the last 40 years or so in the UK) that teaching has been treated like medicine, i.e, it requires extra years of specialised training. Whilst professionalisation and opportunities for further study and development are to be welcomed, they shouldn't drive out those who, for whatever personal or financial reasons, can't embark on such a course but can teach.

It's such a pity that Gove's attempt to open some state schools to recruiting non-QTS teachers was drowned out by the hysterical reaction of the privately educated Hon Dr Tristram Hunt with his warnings of schools being "flooded" by such teachers who were "destroying our children's life chances".

Well, I shall always be grateful to the unqualified teachers who helped my DS on his way to Dr Hunt's old uni. The fees for the privilege were ludicrous, though.

I have a friend who is a fantastic physics teacher. Her pupils make excellent progress. The ones who are capable of doing so go onto to study at some of the best courses I the UK. She inspires her pupils to do their best and love the subject. She set up an observatory in her last school and offered atstronomy as an additional GCSE, and ran a highly popular astronomy club. She would tell me about her colleagues, the good and the bad. The ones who consistently underperformed both left to teach in independent schools.

If someone has great subject knowledge and brilliant communication skills, it's not really that much to ask that they also get qualified in teaching.

I'm sure that there are lots of excellent teachers in independent schools. I'm pretty certain, though, that the very best teachers are found in state schools, because that's where teachers go who want to make a huge difference in people's lives and to face the most interesting professional challenges.

"they shouldn't drive out those who, for whatever personal or financial reasons, can't embark on such a course but can teach."

I can't understand why you would say that about teaching but not any other profession. Or, indeed, trade.

Because, BR, obtaining QTS can prove to be impossible for people who can actually teach. For example, as discussed upthread, a teacher whose degree is in a subject different from the one they teach. There can be all sorts of reasons (and sad stories to tell) why great teachers haven't been able to get QTS. I'm in favour of listening to them.

There are lots of brilliant teachers from other countries who move or would like to move to the UK to work.

But there are significant hurdles that prevent them from doing so in the UK state system.

Crazy when we have a shortage.

jasper I don't think you can say what very best would entail in terms of teaching.

It very much depends on cohort.

"There is a fundamental split between people who thing that anyone can be a teacher-often based on the fact that they taught their own child something once- and the people who think that teaching is a professional skill that must be learned like any other professional skill."

And that's two fallacies this time - strawman and the black and white fallacy. You don't have to believe that "anyone can be a teacher" to question the usefulness/necessity of teacher training in certain circumstances (particularly if teacher training involves nonsense like VAK learning styles or Whole Language or any of the other evidence-free fads that have invested it for the last 40 years). There are plenty of teachers out there who will tell you that their training was next to useless, or who were shocked to find out afterwards that the things they were taught directly contradicted actual research.

"infested", not "invested"!

However, in my experience most academics send their own kids to state schools. I've got a PhD in physics myself, and send my kids to excellent state schools.

I could wonder about this forever but it won't change the fact I can't afford private education.

The reason for the first is usually the second. People constrained by financial means may question their state school provision and whether their DC might be missing out if there is a mismatch between state school and what they think their DC needs. However in almost all cases there is a financial divide which means that there is no choice between private and state.
Pushy (in the nicest possible way) educated parents who are n't really in a position to fund private education but are reasonably happy with their state option are often the MNeters who debate the question most.

I should have written
Pushy (in the nicest possible way) educated parents who are n't really in a position to comfortably fund private education but are reasonably happy with their state option are often the MNeters who debate the question most.

"The reason for the first is usually the second"

I disagree. If I wanted to send my kids private I could probably afford to do it now with some lifestyle changes, and I certainly could if I worked 5 days a week instead of 3, or moved from academia to the city. However, I/we would be less happy, I would have less time to spend with my kids, and on my other non-work interests (and Mumsnet ), and I certainly would have less time to spend in my kids' schools.

I like the academic lifestyle - it suits me an makes me happy. Working full time and feeling I was being ripped off over private school fees would make me cross - especially as I didn't go to private school myself and came out with straight As, a first class degree, a PhD, and a job where I work alongside people with similar qualifications, the majority of whom also went to state schools.

But then my DS does go to very good state (comprehensive) school. If I hadn't been able to get him into such a good secondary I would have moved before I considered going private.

Not forgetting those of us whe could actually afford private education, but who are idealistically opposed to it..........

Pushy (in the nicest possible way) educated parents who aren't really in a position to comfortably fund think there's more to life than private education but and are reasonably happy with their state option are often the MNeters who debate the question most

I agree (with adjustments ). However, often we're also the ones who are doing most to support our local state schools, thereby helping many more children than just our own.

"And that's two fallacies this time - strawman and the black and white fallacy. You don't have to believe that "anyone can be a teacher" to question the usefulness/necessity of teacher training in certain circumstances the poster who prompted the comment certainly implied she believed that- and I have heard many others say similar(particularly if teacher training involves nonsense like VAK learning styles or Whole Language or any of the other evidence-free fads that have invested it for the last 40 years). There are plenty of teachers out there who will tell you that their training was next to useless, or who were shocked to find out afterwards that the things they were taught directly contradicted actual research.Obvioulsy the real world is different to the lecture theatre. But I can't imagine circumstances in which I would want my child to be taught by an unqualified teacher. If qualification is such a barrier, we need to look at ways of making it more accessible- not remove the requirement

" ... and a job where I work alongside people with similar qualifications, the majority of whom also went to state schools"

Not that there aren't lots of private school kids who also do PhDs in physics, but in many cases they leave academia to work in the city, so that they can earn enough to send their own future children private. They certainly don't consider becoming teachers or STEM ambassadors ... and so the cycle continues ... the private sector profits and preens and the state sector does the best it can with the leftover resources and lots of goodwill.

Bertrand "implied" is in the eye of the beholder. I simply do not believe that there is anyone who would seriously argue that "anyone can be a teacher". By creating such an absurd caricature and putting it in the mouths of your opponents, and then opposing it to "people who think teaching is a professional skill and must be learned like any other professional skill" (when what you actually mean is people who believe teachers should have QTS - which is not necessarily the same thing at all!!!) you have constructed a fallacious argument which, in my opinion, would not have impressed your namesake!