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.

Well, there really a need for balancing in life especially you are valuing quality of life(live slow a little sometimes if we can afford and spend alot more time with our children when they are young). My friend whose wife isnt working(and recently worked parttime in charity) and husband is a lecturer in an Unvi then they have completelt different level of spending time with the kids.
So sacrifying spending time with kids, bringing them up to life, leave them with childcare even provide the best for them might not be the best. At the sametime you suffer too as you are missing many aspect of life as a normal human. So yes, if you can comfortably afford it and not have to sacrify the family welbeing in long term then its ofcourse

better as you have choices if you dont like it then you always can come back to state

On the face of it we look like we are sacrificing lots to afford private school fees and no doubt people judge us and think we are stupid for making such sacrifices.
We haven't been abroad for 10 years. We very rarely eat out. We never have takeaways. I am not paying into a pension. We shop at aldi.

The fact is we can't go abroad due to one of our children having a significant medical condition. We can't eat out much due to our child with medical needs having various severe allergies (ditto takeaways). We shop at aldi because I like their food and don't see the point in spending extra. I am not paying into a pension because I am not working and cannot afford it. I wouldn't be able to afford it even if my child was at state school because he has a 90% bursary and gets all travel to school costs and compulsory trips paid for by the school (which covers the 10% fees we are paying as we would have to pay for those things at state school).
No doubt people judge us though and think our choice of private school is strange and leaving us unable to afford the above mentioned things.

I'd be interested to know of parents switching their DC's from private to state out of choice...that would feel harder to me I think, than the other way around.

DH and I are trying to decide between state and private now and we are lucky enough not to feel like we would be making sacrifices to pay for private (not that the amount of money is insignificant or meaningless by any stretch). We are trying to really get clear on what it is that DS would lose/gain from each environment...in the context of most schools near us being highly academic and selective. It is all about perceptions of value isn't it? The example of the dad living overseas to get private school paid for - no way would we do that, for us the kids and DH would benefit far more from seeing each other throughout their childhoods than anything a school could provide (same applies to boarding). Each to their own.

sleep quite a few parents at the prep school my child attended moved to state schools either for financial reasons or logistical reasons or just a feeling that they were wasting their money (particularly those who were not planning on sending their DC to selective independent senior schools).
At the senior school my child is at or is very rare for anybody to move their child to state school for any reason other than finances, nitnitnis a highly regarded school with rough competition for places. Moving to state might be more common in other independent schools

Too many typos there

I can see that at primary level it would be more likely for those reasons loobrush

And I should clarify that it is the private schools near us that are highly academic/selective

Devilish "Why would teachers in the state system mistrust academic excellence when good grades (nowadays) bring them pay rises & improve school positions in league tables?"

That's an interesting point. First of all, it's worth pointing out that for quite a while now the thing that improves secondary school positions in league tables has primarily been getting children from Ds to Cs, and I have read many teacher blogs lamenting the way this can distort the focus of teaching. This will change when Progress 8 is introduced next year, but it hasn't happened yet.

There's a lot more to it than that, however. For example, there are plenty of secondary schools (such as our local one, which my younger daughter attended) that don't set, on principle. Their estimation is that bright middle class children will do well anyway (or well enough), and that their focus should be on less able children, and that having mixed ability classes is good for this. There are a lot of teachers and school leaders out there who, rightly or wrongly, view social justice as being more important than fostering academic excellence, and who downplay the importance of academic achievement because they believe that to do otherwise is damaging to the self-esteem of the less able.

@sleep: yes, I wouldnt do that either if its better then might be moving the whole family but then 2 elder ones are at important state of their educations(coming to do gcse and A-level) so moving abroad altogether isnt ideal. And yes its hard moving back from private to state thats why he had to go so guarantee the kids wont have to move back. To be honest for 3 years I think if we were in the position then we would do the same(if not going then risking pulling the kids out then come to the choice which one will have to go to state). The youngest child went to an outstanding primary but they said its nothing to compare with the brother and sister who went to private primary before.

From my experience, we live in a good area where almost all the kids in my daughter'class own a million £ house at minimum and the school is state. I have tried to ask for some support from school for my child who was above average and too bored at maths lesson but the answer was no G&T scheme, no particular support for children good at maths(there was battle of the books and her team won the council competition so slightly better in literacy). I stop asking, I told her to tag along during maths lessons and try to keep being at the top of the group, try to find other things to do during lessons to pass the hours. I plan to tutor her more at home myself if needed. The reason because its a state school, we have to accept as its "free" so dont ask too much or dont push otherwise your "outstanding fabulous" child might be hated or bullied

"There are a lot of teachers and school leaders out there who, rightly or wrongly, view social justice as being more important than fostering academic excellence, and who downplay the importance of academic achievement because they believe that to do otherwise is damaging to the self-esteem of the less able."

Have you got any evidence to support that statement?

Case by case basis. We have and do use both systems. Youngest in private and am impressed at the freedom the kids get, longer school day allows for more in-depth lessons, outdoor learning loads and in fantastic grounds, subjects such as philosophy being covered etc etc. Will go state later though- on paper we can afford not to but not without compromising on where we live. Which we could.

Well, you could start by reading the comments from teachers under articles in Education Guardian. Or have a look at Disidealist's blog. Or read To Miss With Love. Or consider the widespread practice of getting children to do posters or comic strips, even in Year 8 or 9, rather than writing. Or the fact that essay-writing wasn't on the Key Stage 3 syllabus until very recently. Or the general "dumbing down" of GCSEs that took place over the last 20 years. Or the virtual elimination of textbooks (we are the only country in the world that makes so little use of them). Or the idea that English texts must be "relevant" to children's interests, rather than providing them with a wider view. Or the notion that learning must always be "fun", so that students are still wasting valuable learning time playing silly games in lessons even at GCSE level. Or the devaluation of knowledge and the elevation of "skills" in the 2007 curriculum.

Of course there are plenty of teachers who don't agree with these ideas; but there are many who do. I know this from reading lots of teacher blogs and comments below education articles over a very long period of time, as well as from my own observation of my children's schooling. Am I in a position to give you a list of references off the top of my head? No, but then who on this forum would be?

Please don't get the idea that I don't care about social justice. I do, very much so. I just don't think that the style of education that has been loosely labelled "progressive" for the last 100 years or so is the best way to achieve it. For example, I believe that state schools should prioritise teaching every child to read fluently, using the best methods available. Yet there has been an entrenched resistance to the evidence supporting phonics among many teachers and educationalists who would view themselves as progressive, despite the fact that it is disadvantaged and SEN children who suffer most from the Whole Language malarkey. And this is not an isolated example. Cognitive psychologists such as Dan Willingham point out that it is less able and less advantaged children who suffer most from progressive "discovery" methods of maths teaching. One of the reasons that more effective methods are resisted by primary teachers (including phonics) is precisely because they are regarded as too boring and academic, and insufficiently concerned with "developing the whole child".

"Their estimation is that bright middle class children will do well anyway (or well enough), and that their focus should be on less able children, and that having mixed ability classes is good for this"

But when Ofsted comes to call they (now) have to show that children in all attainment groups are making good/outstanding progress, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if that was their attitude.

I do agree it has been a strong feature of teachers' attitudes in the past. I think, in general, notwithstanding a few wrinkles that need to be ironed out, and refinements that need to be made, Ofsted is the parents' friend because it keeps teachers on their toes and challenges exactly those sorts of entrenched attitudes.

Sorry, that was poorly worded - that should have been "some" primary school teachers.

This is an impossible question. There are too many variables. If you are confident in your DCs abilities and work ethic and you have a reasonable state school then it might well not be 'worth it' to send the kids to a private school. Financially we could easily afford to send our DC to private school and we would have happily done so had we not had a decent comprehensive practically on the doorstep plus motivated DC. There can be advantages to kids going to their local comprehensive especially if they can still do well.

My DC are now adults and i think they feel proud of themselves for getting good results etc without the benefit of a 'fancy' school. If any of them had run into any problems we would have switched them to private school.

If we had lived somewhere where the local,school was awful then I would have pawned the imaginary family silver to send them to a private school.

Kesstrel - according to a recent teacher thread teacher's pay now depends on pupils reaching their predicted grades. I can't see why they'd be deliberately against pupils reaching their grades albeit I can see what you mean about how making 5 A-C important may focus school resources on C/D boundaries (not sure that's such a bad thing - surely most A's are achieved by individual hard work rather than anything a teacher does? - I suspect teachers do make a lot of difference at the C/D boundary). As so many indies are selective in some way that c/d boundary is clearly not going to be such an issue for them - nor are they subject to govt obsessions with random benchmarks (I know parents still study the stats)

Sleep - I've had kids at ds3's prep school for ten years. The vast majority move into the state sector at year 7. A wide range of state schools as well. Only 1 or 2 pupils per year group move on to independent secondary schools.

DSS2 came home yesterday for reading week. He is full of stories about his new life at university in England, including ones about how useless at maths some of his fellow ex-private (especially boarding) school students are. All these students have A* at A-level Maths and FM.

Wottafaff, I agree with you about the influence of Ofsted judgments. However, many good or outstanding schools only get Ofsteded fairly irregularly. GCSE results, on the other hand, come out every year, and the number of A*-C passes has an immediate effect on standing in league tables. Our local school makes a very big hoopla to parents and the press about having some of the best results in the region, to the extent that at every parents' event it is drummed into this (to the exclusion of things that we really wanted to find out!).

The really awful thing about that, in our case, is that these results have been achieved by utterly shameless cheating on controlled assessments (something I only found out after my daughter had been through her GCSEs). If they don't up their game and start setting, they are likely to see their results drop dramatically in 2017, when the first exam-only results come out.

Well, I really must go do some work!!!

BoboChic of course your DSS2 may be right but since both your DSSs now have a track record of saying how wonderful they are and how rubbish everybody else (maybe telling what you want to hear) I am not sure how much credence BoboChic's DSSs have.

I do find it hard to believe that state school teachers in large numbers are deliberately sabotaging their pupil's life chances and their own career progression. Why would they?

My answer to the OP's question would be: it's NOT worth paying for private if your state options provide what you are after for your child. If you are after a school that offers three MFL, triple science, Latin and/or Greek, and you can find a state school that can offer all of that (I went to one, all be it abroad) then you don't need to go private. If you are after a school with great music provision or dance and drama and you have access to a state school that offers this, then you don't need to pay either. If you can't find what your child would want or need, then I think it's worth considering paying for it.
In our case, looking at all the schools around us, including a highly selective grammar school that DS got in to, the only school that offers all the languages/sciences/music that we want, is a private school, and for this reason we think it would be worth paying for. Now you might say: well you could get a tutor in for the odd languages that your child wants to learn and send him to a state school, couldn't you? Yes, but since kids spend roughly 6 or 7 hours a day in school I expect them to learn all the things we want them to learn THERE, and not after school in their free time while doing all sorts of 'soft' stuff as a part of the curriculum at school.

Sorry devilish when I was talking about moving private to state I wasn't thinking of natural school progression stages so much, but more in the middle of it all. Our DC's are at a mixture too, I just feel like a move from state to private would be psychologically easier than the other way - that's not necessarily rational or right of course, its that whole perception of private being 'better' but it isn't always the case and it obviously depends on the child.

I wonder if my bright (but not G&T) DS would end up feeling demotivated and lacking confidence being consistently towards the bottom of the class should he get into a highly selective private school yet also about whether he will be pushed hard enough to achieve his potential at a state school, even an outstanding one.

Whilst the Latin/Greek thing is being mentioned...is there really any benefit to these if you aren't heading towards a career in medicine/linguistics ...genuine question.

I can of course understand perfectly well that no-one else is going to pay much attention to my anecdotes . Especially fee paying parents!