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 am often in Winchester for work. I was there yesterday. Happygardening perhaps you could ask your DS and the rest of the boys to look both ways before stepping onto the zebra crossing on St Cross Road

Many of my colleagues ( I work at Oxbridge) send/send their DC to independent schools.

As do I.

And amongst colleagues in the widening access schemes across many of the most selective universities I don't know anyone who does not believe there is a gap between the sectors. Both in terms of end result qualifications and day to day experience.

If we all felt there was no difference we wouldn't spend our time on the scheme!

I would be hard pressed to think of any circumstances in which a private education is "worth" it. I think education in a good (subjective term I know) state school is just better all round for children than to be closeted away in the rarefied world of a private school. Only send your kids to a private school if they want to be part of the establishment, I say.

wotaffaf if somebody has to make lifestyle adjustments to afford private education they can't afford it comfortably. In your case since the state schools supply the need of course there is more to life than private education and therefore the debate is comfortably theoretical.

BertrandRussell ideology is all well and good but would n't you agree that 'champagne socialists' who keep their DCs in poor state schools are usually focussed on proving a point and as such are not the most rational when debating this issue.

But shouldn't we be concerned about what underpins the difference between private and state experience and outcomes, rather than the simple "fact" of a difference?

The genetics research suggests that mixing between socio-economic classes could well provide the best outcome for society in general (a broadly well educated and learning-engaged population being good for everyone). Unfortunately, the current system - private education included - entrenches these class-based silos. There is always going to be anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but it remains relatively unusual for people to move far out of the socio-economic class that they were born and raised in.

And I don't just isolate private education as problematic. The ability to buy access to top performing state schools through living in a (usually more expensive) catchment area is, in many respects, far more scandalous and is an issue that needs tackling is we are serious about equal oppurtunities in, and through, education.

"BertrandRussell ideology is all well and good but would n't you agree that 'champagne socialists' who keep their DCs in poor state schools are usually focussed on proving a point and as such are not the most rational when debating this issue." I don't know anyone-champagne socialist or otherwise- who insists on keeping their child in a poor school to prove a point..

Oh I know people who keep their DC in poor schools.

They tell themselves (and everyone else) that the school is fine.
They tell themselves (and everyone else) that they can make up the difference with tutoring if need be.
They tell themselves (and everyone else) that their MC children will do well regardless.

Up to them. But I aint buying their BS .

georgina you make a good point.

And indeed most of my colleagues involved in widening participation spend a lot of time considering the why and the how.

But ultimately we have to deal in the actuality (as do parents).

Well I have seen 3 children through school and have 1 left to go (in primary), so, yes, we have dealt with the "actuality" over 26 years. That is, We live in an area with WELL below average secondary educational attainment levels for England & Wales. We decided to stay where we are and go a satisfactory state for political reasons, and have used our money to buy experiences that (I think) have shaped our kids in a way that formal education (state and private) would not have done. The 3 eldest have completed undergraduate study at LSE, St. Andrews and Liverpool. So, okay, I think.

The "actuality" of the research I linked to earlier suggests that education informs around 30% of outcome. As I said, it is concern that such much faith is placed in private education to deliver better results. Esp. If people are experiencing financial hardship as a result.

Minty- great ideal to have if your local state schools are any good

Depends what is meant by "good" really, doesn't it peppa? My children go to London comps where 65% A*-C gcse is about the highest result they could hope to achieve. I'm still quite confident that I'd prefer them to be there than in a fee-paying school.

Anyway, I don't accept any argument that says the alternative to education in a poor state school is to go private.

Mintyy could you qualify that. Are you saying that poor state is always better than private even when academic options are closed down (fair enough if you don't particularly value those academic options or can provide them yourself)? Or are you taking a step further and would say poor state is better than private even when your DC is unhappy and can't fit in?

And are you arguing that from the POV of being able to comfortably afford private?

I have never met a teacher who believed "anyone" could be a teacher, let alone a head who appointed such a teacher. The profession as a whole (qualified, unqualified, state, independent) deserves a whole lot more respect.

Our DC are at private school and we have very little left afterwards. We don't buy new clothes often and we stick to a food budget. Our house is very scruffy and badly in need of a facelift. We go on very cheap holidays whereas DCs friends are always swanning off to USA for a month in the summer and topping up their tans at autumn half term as their DFs are bankers and lawyers and rolling in it.

But we do spend money elsewhere - on theatre and gig tickets and meals out. We enjoy life. It's just that we have to choose what to spend money on as we can't have it all. Our theory is that DC get a brilliant education - we all love their school, and they get a nice life during vacation, with lots of outings and interesting but pretty basic holidays.

I would far rather spend the money on their education than have a gorgeous new kitchen, holidays in luxurious hotels and new outfits every season.

It's not worth it if you can't keep a roof over your head, be warm, buy new clothes as and when, eat reasonably well and occasionally go out for a meal and have a family holiday. In London, housing prices mean more and more people will make the decision it's not worth it, if it's a choice between affording a mortgage or rent. Which is why London schools are going to be loaded with super-rich and kids on bursaries, no one in between.

I object to private education for so many reasons. But the notion that it delivers a superior academic outcome just isn't supported by the evidence.

If people talked in terms of buying access to privilege due to the socio-economic demographics of the private education sector, well, I might not like it, but that is difficult to dispute. For example, my friend freely admits that her son accessed medical school because he did well in his exams, BUT he also made a whole lot of advantageous conections at school and gained real life experience in medical settings through (consultant) parents of his friends. There is also that charm, self-assurance and confidence of many privately educated children that comes from the belief (whether or not it is explicitly communicated by the school) that they are "better". Access to networks of privilege and the "character forming" element of private education will take an individual far given that we don't live in meritocracy.

Just let's not pretend it is all about the great education...and if anyone genuinely thinks that, they need to re-consider the evidence.

Disinclined: "In your case since the state schools supply the need of course there is more to life than private education and therefore the debate is comfortably theoretical"

I think the opposite is true. The debate is about the point at which private education isn't worth it, and I'm exactly at that point. It's only theoretical if you're a long way south of that point, either because you can't afford it or because your local state options are so bad that you can't trust your child's education with them.

Georgina, that statement is debatable to say the least. But even if it were true, it would only be true as a statistical average. The idea that a comprehensive with lots of disruptive behaviour, and that doesn't set, can deliver the same outcomes as a private school just doesn't stand up.

There was a documentary recently which gave the heads and four students from a private school and a state school to experience each other's schools. I found it really interesting even allowing that schools willing to take part would be self selecting and people were trying to show themselves in the best light on camera. The differences weren't necessarily in the teaching - the state school head had expected it to be poorer in private schools because of the people she had seen leave the state sector to work there.

The state school had challenges that the public school simply didn't need to consider being able to select its intake. The private school obviously had more resources, engaged parents etc.

The difference that struck me was (despite the state school being a good one) the difference in respect offered to the pupils from the staff and each other. It looked a lot less stressful. As the state head commented, they already had the Oxford (or Oxbridge, I can't remember he exact expression) walk, they were confident, assured and relaxed in the grounds.

Although I don't think the pleasant, supportive, resource filled environments should be the preserve of the rich, I can't blame parents who want that for their children and can afford it to provide it. I wonder what it would take to improve state schools to make them less stressful, more relaxed and respectful. I think students would learn better in that environment, even if (perhaps especially if) their home lives are more chaotic.

My DD is growing up with the confidence that she can achieve anything BECAUSE she is in a state school. She knows that she is doing well because she can benchmark herself against the rest of her school, who represent the real population of this country, not just 7%. She knows that her close family include a professor, an uncle with degrees from Oxford, Cambridge & Durham, a lawyer and public sector professionals, all from a state school background.

We've had the opportunity to give her cultural capital by spending time with her ourselves because she lives with us, not in a dormitory dependent upon a teacher or house master to provide it. She eats with us, listening to the Today programme & PM so politics, economics and social awareness are part of her everyday existence. She intends to go to a good university and she'll get there, despite her lack of a private education. Despite what you read on MN, good universities don't just accept privately educated teenagers.

I had both a private & state education. As a chartered accountant I could afford to send her to private school, but I wouldn't waste a penny of my income doing so, because I know which one prepared me for the real world. I work with recent graduates from both a state & private school background and there really is little difference in quality between them except for their accent.

wotafaff fair enough but you are comfortably in the zone where you consider private is n't worth it since you are very pleased with your state school and how your DCs are doing rather than just 'hmm' about it.

Stickerrock I see where you are coming from - she can engage with real life and do well despite not having everything handed on a plate. However I have to say that my experience of present and recent generations of medical students does not back that up. I have observed no difference in how much they expect to be spoonfed or how they relate to the patients according to which school sector they come from. Individual students vary but I would n't be able to label them as private or state although definitely MC or not MC.

To clarify, I cannot accept the argument that an alternative to poor state provision is to go private - because the vast majority of people cannot afford it! Obviously.

Going private is buying perceived advantage. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not an actual advantage in many cases.

Kesstrel it might be debatable, but I am basing my view on the largest scientific study undertaken on educational outcomes from GCSE to A Level in Britain (and is esp. interesting as it was a twin study). The post-A level results of the study have just been published.

The study supports what Mintyy is saying - in academic terms at least - the advantage gained through the buying education is mostly perceived. The study suggests (as I said above) that around 60% of academic outcome is down to genetics. It may well be that those fantastic private schol outcomes reflect the genetic pool of participants as opposed to anything that it being bought.

I'm teaching in an "Ofsted Outstanding" state school at the moment having spent the majority of my career in independent.

Yesterday while we were having lunch in the science prep room, teachers were lamenting the fact that no one in the bottom two sets would get a C (this is 120 students). In my independent school, everyone would get a C or more in Science, and this included those with an IQ of 80 - 85. I kept very quiet in this discussion.