if you could afford to go private, should you?

[tankerdale]

Sometimes I worry that we've got our priorities wrong. We've ended up in a lovely large home with high running costs, we've got some but not loads of savings, most of our 'wealth' is in our house. Income is very good on paper but month to month we only manage to save a small amount, if any. I work 2.5 days, DH is full time. We have a nice lifestyle and I guess eat out a bit but I don't think we're otherwise extravagant, don't spend much on holidays, run 1 car, don't spend loads on clothes etc.

3dc, 2 already at primary school. We live in the catchment of what is considered a very good non selective state secondary but it is massive.

As it stands we couldn't afford to put 3dc through private secondary (there's a nice one nearby). But have we got it wrong? Should we move to a more modest home and prioritise paying for their education?

Feeling a bit guilty that we're not putting them first. Dc1 seems v bright and will probably be ok anywhere, dc2 I'm not so sure about and too early to tell with dc3.

If they go to the state school and have any problems I'm going to wish we made a different choice I think.

So - in principle, if you can pay for private - should you?

Yes happygardening I used £18k because the boarding element is significant where applicable, so £18k is probably a reasonable(ish) direct comparison.

i don't think everything has to be perfect but I do think we should encourage children to not set limits on what they can achieve. We can and should push ourselves to achieve our own individual excellence in all the things we do.
We can also learn and improve so much from life's little set backs, (I've just experienced one of these) when things don't go as we planned its so easy to think F**k it, I'm wasting my time I'll give it up, but if we are resilient enough to learn and adapt from these set backs and it really helps if others continue to encourage us, then set backs can make us adapt perhaps try something we previously refused to consider and find a different way and as I discovered in some cases a better way.

Indeed - coping with failure, a very useful life skill and carrying on no matter how bad things are. Most of us who have done fairly well (however you define that) have had various set backs and it is how you deal with those which matters which is why it's important as well as praising children they also know when they are doing worse than other children. it is a competitive world out there. They can't all have prizes although they can choose not to take part in the competition in some ways if they choose.

There are fewer issues with alcohol and drugs in the state school I work in than private schools of my experience.

Yet another sweeping judgement from another thread, it goes completely unchecked or even acknowledged.
Can you imagine if that was said about state schools?

It's constant. I also noticed on another thread a few weeks ago that at least three posters that were saying private education is 'immoral' had buy to let properties which were for the children.
That's a pretty immoral leg up in life too.

I think people will just trot out any old trope to bolster their parental defences.

Parents worry that someone else's kid is getting something better than their own. This is especially true of middle class parents.

So a lot of effort is expended in guarding against that feeling. And buying into ideas that help, even if they clearly don't stand up is part and parcel.

And I do suspect that this collective defence mechanism has been a very useful diversion/tool for a government hell bent on bringing irreparable harm to state education.

While I agree that ego defenses prevent parents from facing up to the reality of the substandard education their DC receive, I also think that many parents have very little experience or understanding of education beyond their own childhood passage through school. It's hard to critique things when you have no alternative data.

I do suspect that this collective defence mechanism has been a very useful diversion/tool for a government hell bent on bringing irreparable harm to state education

Absolutely- it's quietly getting destroyed in the background, private education is not causing this.
We all have an interest in good state education plus lots of us use both sectors too.

"There are fewer issues with alcohol and drugs in the state school I work in than private schools of my experience.

Yet another sweeping judgement from another thread, it goes completely unchecked or even acknowledged.
Can you imagine if that was said about state schools?"

Actually, I think it used to be true. It certainly was in my youth. Drink and drugs were expensive. I don't think it is true now in the days of Tesco Value vodka.

People really are blind to the sweeping generalizations being made all the time about state schools. It's utterly fascinating.

That's true bobo but I have little patience with supposedly intelligent people trotting out obvious nonsense whilst failing to engage with basic real issues.

No, quite the opposite, it's fascinating how acceptable it is to call children thick, spoilt, druggies etc. It pretty much never gets confronted.

I also think that many parents have very little experience or understanding of education beyond their own childhood passage through school

Absolutely, or friends of friends or their own imagination

What sweeping generalisations bert?

The facts are that state schools are being starved of funds. You couldn't teach a dog to jump through a hoop on the sums proposed.

The fact is there is a teacher shortage.

The new qualifications have been rushed through despite objection from many experts and the teaching profession.

Disruption is the number one issue reported to me and my colleagues as a barrier to attainment.

Underachievement among high ability pupils is well documented and pretty universally accepted as fact in HE and by successive governments.

Anyone choosing to discuss these problems isn't simply peddling nonsense like 'private schools are full of drugs'.

"No, quite the opposite, it's fascinating how acceptable it is to call children thick, spoilt, druggies etc. It pretty much never gets confronted."

It is always confronted! Calling state school children low achieving disruptive bullies that you think it would be better not to be born than mix with passes unnoticed.

Of course there are issues, GetaHaircut. Informed discussion is interesting and useful. Well, useful up to a point.

That's nonsense Bertrand, I have just given a perfect example.
7% of parents are dominating the boards apparently and slating state schools .

Utter hypocrisy.

My dd1 was at a secondary modern, I had some very worrying issues at that school, I never post about them because it's hopefully confined to that school.
It would at least be direct experience rather than all the ridiculous statements made by people who have never set foot in a private school.

Still it must make people feel better, ranting on an Internet forum rather than actually doing something.

"That's nonsense Bertrand, I have just given a perfect example.
7% of parents are dominating the boards apparently and slating state schools hmm.

Utter hypocrisy."

I have never seen a disobliging comment about private pupils go unchallenged. Which is as it should be.

Incidentally, I think a survey a while ago suggested that 35% of mumsnetters used private schools. I could be wrong, but it was certainly significantly higher than the general population. Unsurprisingly.

People can be simultaneously intelligent but uninformed, for lack of time and energy to engage with issues. I am increasingly sympathetic to this even though I waste spend most much of my own life working out my own thinking about education. I have too many friends whose DC have had a rocky ride through education because their two parents were far too busy being brain surgeons/bankers/consultants to engage with their DC's schooling before things had seriously derailed.

But the very comment that I posted went unchallenged Bertrand, that was exactly why I posted .

I have been here for 14 years, it's a pet peeve of mine. I have no foot firmly in either camp, 2/3 of my children are in the state sector.

Did someone really say that private school kids were thick spoiled druggies and nobody challenged it? Good lord- when?

Yes, absolutely. I haven't got time to trawl through posts and present them to you but they have.

I am having a chuckle at your utter bewilderment and fury at being called sarcastic by another poster earlier though.
You just can't help yourself.

You yourself have used the word thick in relation to children at private school too.

Forgive me- I have not.

On this thread, I picked up a phrase used by someone else and pointed out that there are in fact, private schools that specialize in "rich, thick kids" The phrase was objected to several times and I apologized and rephrased. Giving the lie to your assertion that such language goes unchallenged.

I shall put "thick entitled druggies" into advanced search if you like and find it for you. Roughly when was it used?

Do you think that sentiments like children being too clever or sensitive for state schools are regularly challenged? Or the often expressed view that it is better to only have one child than to have more and risk sending them to state school?

Or, indeed, phrases like "throwing them to the lions at a comprehensive"? The "dregs" comment was by a particularly unpleasant poster, now left, so I won't ask you to comment on that.

I have never heard the exact phrase too sensitive or too clever used.

I have heard posters explain that a particular private school suited their particular child because it was smaller and emphasised pastoral care as a unique selling point. Perhaps this is what you mean by too sensitive?

I've also heard posters choose highly selective private schools because they offer a faster pace and a more challenging assortment of courses than their particular local comp. perhaps this is what you mean by too clever?