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.

So then why don't you go back to the independent sector where you so obviously belong GinandJag?

Were you in one of those exceptionally rare places - a non academically selective private school?

GinandJag, what do you think explains that difference? Better whole class teaching? More resources To allow for things like very small classes, extra tuition etc? More help and support at home? Other things?

If you old schools were getting dramatically different results from a genuinely comparable group of pupils, then I think that it is very important to establish why that is and to make sure that state school pupils are able to access a similar level of education.

Gin, Mintyys question is spot on, if the two schools' admission criteria are different then it isn't fair to compare results in that way.

I have children in state & private schools. I was educated in state & private schools. I have a PhD & an Oxbridge undergrad degree.

I personally believe there are pros & cons to both systems. By next September all of my children will he in the state sector & I am looking forward to being able to do some work on the house.

The main difference I've observed between the sectors (now & when I was at school) is in the provision extra curricular activities. There are generally more on offer (partly because of the assumption that parents will pay for it) in the private sector. I don't find it a problem - my children access extra curricular activities outside school - run to a far higher standard than anything accessible within any school - the only disadvantage is having to provide the taxi service to & from everything - although ds2 is of an age where he can get himself to & from activities now (which is useful as he does 15 hours of extra curricular a week at the moment).

The school (state) that we hope ds3 will start in September expects every teacher to run a lunchtime or after school club so I'll be interested to see whether that leads to private levels of offerings. That school also has an extended school day (again a bit private school-ish).

I believe there are many advantages to not boarding (& I weekly boarded happily myself). It's not something I can imagine ever considering - especially with boys.

I'm not convinced by educational advantages to private schools and small classes have pros & cons (has suited ds3, didn't suit ds2 at all).

I am, Minty, from January.

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.
So taking that to its logical conclusion, rich people who can afford private school fees are brighter and have brighter DCs. Possibly but with more highly educated people educating their DCs in the state system that seems less likely for the recent generation. Unless academics are not as bright as city bankers .

Jasper,

I would say that home support is vital. Together with small class sizes, we can extract the absolute best from the weakest students.

Add in appropriate access arrangements.

I do worry about so-called "Oxbridge graduates" sometimes.

If I dont have to work very hard and long hours and do not have to worry about fiancial status of my family in long run then ofcourse its private. If I have to stretch it too much then ofcourse state.

I have a friend who has to offshore somewhere so his firm would pay for the 3 kids private education and yes they are loving it, all three doing really well, daddy will have to carry on working abroad until the first one go to Univ by then they could afford sending 2 others to private with his uk income

My boss and my previous boss and almost everyoneI know at work who has children send their kids to private, there isnt a question about it. There are so much uncertainty about job status these days butI guess they dont sit and worrying about smth might never happen yet

The reason I cant send my kids to private now because I cant fully

Afford it yet. With £65/week music, a nanny, £100 for arts and language a week, £20 swimming etc. Not mentioning private has more holiday how ob earth could I afford more nanny cost. If my husband earned super well and I could stay at home(or have a luxury of coming to work if I like) then ofcourse I will go private, still paying for extra activities hiring the best and most convenient.

It is a fact of life that some people will not get a grade C for science simply because they can't. It's also a fact of life that not everyone needs a grade C in science. However, good teaching can give you an appreciation of science in a way that relates your llife, even if you don't get a piece of paper saying "C" at the end of it. The missing C Isn't the end of the world (except to the school which is judged to have failed).

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.
Minty so you are not disputing that some private education does provide an advantage. Are you one of those parents that BertrandRussell has not come across, a parent who would leave their DC in a poor state school even if you could pay?

I think GinandJag puts her finger on the reason why private education is so appealing: DC aren't allowed to fall through the net and independent schools carry a guarantee of base line education that state schools don't. There are just far more resources and far greater engagement at private schools to ensure that DC learn.

I have been happy to pay for 5 children at fee paying schools from age 4 and indeed to fund them at university without loans. However plenty of parenst are happy with state schools. Let people just make their own choices.

The first post just sounds like someone who is jealous because why is it the business of the friend that the other couple choose to make those sacrifices to afford school fees? 500,000 of us pay fees and save the country a small fortune.

Someone mentioned above studies showing genes matter and twin studies show that too. I still remain of the view that it is about 50/50 - genes and environment, may be 60/40. So it is worth putting in parental effort and choosing good schools.

There are lots of reasons why parents choose fee paying schools. I like single sex education, academically selective education and I don't like boarding school so chose accordingly although as we all know the good schools choose the children and not the other way round.

As for what makes a good teacher it's hard to generalise. I have always been fairly good at explaining things in a way people can understand. Some of that is probably just innate or people skills although of course you need to know your subject too.

(Green, interesting - I work hard and with long hours but I see that as a plus for children not a negative as the children then take on board that work ethic. One reason my older children who now have jobs are desirable to exmployers it not just exam results but the grit, work ethic, never being off sick stuff which makes them useful and I am not saying you have to pick that up on the playing fields of Eton but it is certainly part of the package of things I buy when I pay school fees which goes much beyond exam results. It includes the stuff my son will play on the trumpet today - that opportunity to perform in front of a lot of people - it's only a remembrance thing and I am sure state schools have them too).

I believe those who pay for education often assume they are buying extras such as a school installing grit & work ethic etc. With a foot in both camps (so no chip on shoulder) I see no evidence for that at all tbh.

bobo naturally some DC do badly in education whatever sector they're in.

Things happen. Illness and tragedy strike. Parents divorce. Teenaged hormones kick in like a tsunami. DC disengage.

But for the most part independent schools can help their pupils achieve well. DD's last school does not select by ability yet the results are very good indeed.

GCSEs are not so much a test of intellect as proficiency in several subjects + organisational skills+ consistent effort. Schools can really help with that.

SheGot - I have friends with one DC who has serious academic difficulties despite very high IQ parents. They have had him tested in every possible way but the conclusion is that he is a genetic outlier, a DC whose academic profile is completely different to his (nuclear and extended) family, without any statement able learning difficulties.

He is incredibly well supported at school and at home. He will pass exams.

OTOH the stepdaughter of one of my first cousins, with fewer problems, failed to learn to read at school which she left at 18. She fell through the net, despite being MC (but at state schools).

I believe those who pay for education often assume they are buying extras such as a school installing grit & work ethic etc. With a foot in both camps (so no chip on shoulder) I see no evidence for that at all tbh.

Devilish, really? I do. Very strongly. That's precisely what I'm paying for. DC were state educated at primary level and I was state educated. Common to both their and my experiences was a wilful mistrust of excellence. Even teachers disliked bright kids. To excel academically was seen to be getting above yourself, and most crucially standing out among your peers which was seen as undesirable. It was fine to excel at sport, OK to excel at music but not academically. I found that in my own education. I spotted it was still prevalent at DCs very naice middle class village primary and looked at private. The ethos in the private sector is streets ahead of anything I've seen in state, (not counting grammars.)

I've really not seen it. Went to Oxford from a state school, soon to have all three children in state schools. There may be an unfamiliarity with entrance to Oxford/Cambridge that reduces confidence in state schools so they don't suggest having a go to people in with a chance. I also believe that private school applicants are more likely to try again. My old Etonian neighbour applied three times before getting in. It wouldn't have occurred to me to try more than once & I would have gone with my second choice. I think that's confidence (or arrogance? - it can serve you well) (& lack of) rather than grit though.

My only complaint so far is that ds2's (state) school looks as if it might now become a bit of an exam factory (change of head). Although as I said upthread he does 15 hours a week of extra curricular activities that is of higher quality than anything provided via a school so it doesn't really matter that much for him.

Ds3's first choice school is very different so will judge that when he gets there. But certainly they were talking about excellence (in any field - I may have grilled the SLT). I certainly hope it's the case.

Why would teachers in the state system mistrust academic excellence when good grades (nowadays) bring them pay rises & improve school positions in league tables? If anything there seems an obsession on academic progression in state schools (which I personally do not like).

Oh one other difference of course can be the breadth of the curriculum. Ds3 wants to study Latin & only one state school offers it here (not sure about the private schools but some prepare for CE so I assume they do!) - but we'll do the Cambridge Latin course from home for a long as he wants to.

Ds2 has chosen his options at his state school & had a free choice - including 2 creatives; hasn't been forced to do the ebacc, so has been able to drop history & geography (hooray he says). That will presumably change with the latest announcements, but I had my children the right way round & being forced to do history won't be a issue for history obsessed ds3.

Having some room to ignore government tick boxes is something I would see as an advantage of private education - especially for any square pegs.

But it depends what you want for your children as well doesn't it? I'm sure for many paying parents 'City lawyer' would be seen as a fantastic result & worth shelling out the dosh - whereas I would hate my children to just fall into that. (I know a lot who have & hate it!).

Faling and trying again, getting things wrong and red marks on the work - they probably are things you might see more in the private sector. Most of my success in life has come from taking calculated risks, not being fearful of failing, failing and then dustring myself down and carrying on. Now that is probably due to a mixture of my family but also the private schools I went to from age 4. My twins did their driving theory test this week with a good chance of not passing but had a go. Their non private school educated teacher seems to think you try things when you are sure of success. I don't. I think you take risks in life and can learn from failure and that if you don't aim high you never get high even if you only have a small chance of getting that high thing you are after (ditto countless grade 8 music exams my children have scraped through... mind you that's partly lack of practice).

Dev, but surely no one reasonable bright should drop both history and geography? Whatever sector that school is in I don't think that's doing the child much good. Much better to do a full range of GCSEs. In fact most of my children did both history and geog as did I in my day and even my parents in theirs.

This topic crops up fairly frequently on here.
The fact of the matter is: people are free to spend their money however they choose even if it means scrimping on other things.

Some people buy expensive cars and sacrifice holidays or clothes.
Some people have expensive holidays and live in tiny cramped houses.
Some people have takeaways twice every week but then eat beans on toast several times a week due to a lack of food budget.

Why people feel the need to examine peoples spending on private education is beyond me. Most people spend money on things that other people will see as a waste or uneccesary expenditure. Why can't we just be concerned with our own finances and our own choices?

Well he's doing separate sciences, English, maths, MFL, & RE - so he has plenty of academic subjects alongside his music & drama (of far more importance to him than history or geog). If his school had still been doing 11 GCSE's he'd have tagged geography reluctantly onto that, but they've reduced to 10 in his year due to the new GCSE's.

I did geography & history for O level & can't see that he's missing much - I bore him with u shaped valleys when we drive through Wales & the formation of various landforms when dragged out walking & the house is stuffed full of history books & many conversations about history (ds3). His geography/history education is not lacking albeit he won't have the piece of paper to prove that.

He would have really, really struggled with having to drop either music or drama though. Thank goodness he didn't have to.

I agree with DeoGratias on the failing/trying thing. I am also a great believer in having a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C and a Plan D (and also a Plan E) and in being quite open-minded about reordering those priorities as we go, according to any new information that we uncover on our journey.

I suppose if forced, he would have substituted RE for geography. Not sure I can see the advantage there. If geography AND history were compulsory at his school they'd have room for one option - they only get 3 as it is! How to bore kids rigid.