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?

To be fair I think Bertrand quoted "thick" from another poster and then explained her point and rephrased. I do not agree with everything Bertrand says but on this - she herself did not refer to "thick" kids. The "dregs" comment is IMHO beyond the pale and I have not seen that generally used. I hope it can be tossed aside in the same way as private school boys all use "scum" as a term as a one off.

Getahaircut - your last post makes sombre reading. (No shit sherlock)

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

Haven't you? I have. Often in sentences like "Dd would probably be fine in state, but ds is sensitive so......."

Thank you, Basilisk- you explained me better than I explained myself!

Ha ha - no problem - I do disagree with a very great deal of what you say but - terms of engagement and all that ..........

I have friends/family who "could never" send their kids to state school, as their kids are "too sensitive" or "too clever" or "could never cope in a class of 30"

It grates a tiny bit, but ultimately makes me laugh as our local comps are really very good,

All our family send their kids private and we are seen as dangerously experimental mavericks to send our kids to a comp.

People can be so funny.

Bertrand yup, heard that one plenty of times. There's also the thing where someone visibly works to rearrange their face when you don't give their expected answer to "and where does x go.....?"

The standout was the woman who spent about 20 mins telling me all the reasons why she had not sent her DD to the (state) school my kids go to.

The people who don't want to believe that in our area selective schools discriminate against and in some cases actively discourage any child with learning difficulties. (Their kids are usually NT)

And OP - this is not sour grapes. We can comfortably afford private education, but have made a choice not to take that path for DD1.

As I said earlier, all the points Carl makes are correct and the financial one is the one currently compounding the rest. The situation is critical. However, the exam specs one applies to both sectors and, to be fair, the curriculum changes are positive for high achievers (the sub group that Carl is referring to) and are bedding down pretty well.

rich and thick' is a quotation, from a famous public schoolboy describing his own pupils in a public school when teaching them. I have heard it used most frequently by professionals in the private sector and by private pupils about their foes at other schools (most notably by Etonians about Harrovians).

Its hardly in the same league as 'I dare not have more children lest they come into contact with the state school system and all its alarums'

Regarding the great benefit of 'confidence' imbued by a privileged education - their is a thin line between being sufficiently self confident to make your way and 'entitled' which I come across far more often in the graduates of private schools. Not surprising though I guess if they have been brought up with attitudes like 'one child means I can avoid the awful state school people'.

What did you decide Tanker ? I have to say that even though I am as sure as sure can be that state is the right choice for my kids, reading these threads makes me question myself. Then I remind myself that whilst my DD with no SENs would be welcomed and celebrated in the private system, DS (with SENs) would most certainly not. Even with plenty of hard cash and the private system would not be an option.

There are children with SENs in my DC's private schools. There is not a blanket no to SEN children.

You have to search for them, but there are some wonderful private schools for children with SENs. Prep schools especially, it is harder at senior level but nonetheless there are some that really do celebrate individuality rather than just saying theyre inclusive.

My child could cope with 30 other kids in the class but this was a big factor in the school I chose.
I don't think 30 kids in a class is great for learning. It is acceptable but I don't like it for any child. It shouldn't be the norm. Bright kids will do well but I am not so sure about the rest.

As I said there are a few out there but they are absoloutely not the norm. Believe me we looked into it! We live in an area that is flush with private schools and despite being told that there were places as soon as we disclosed that our son had SENs there was no place. Why should you have to search high and low to pay someone a vast amount to 'accept' your child?

Why should you have to search high and low to pay someone a vast amount to 'accept' your child?

Private schools select by income. Private schools often select by academic ability. I'm not sure why these two are OK with you, but it's then not OK for them to select on other criteria, such as ability to provide for some SEN.

(BTW ALL private schools in our vicinity have SEN children. However, many of the secondaries do not take children whose SEN prevent them from keeping up with their year, as they are academically selective schools. They do take children with SEN who can thrive with the support available.)

Neither are ok with me user. I'm uncomfortable with it all. I got filled with the fear that is rife here of "what happens when it gets to secondary?". I don't think it was morally right of me to try to find somewhere for my son to go privately or to try our daughter in the private system. I understand completely why people do it and their justifications for it but I don't think that it's right.

Im not saying you should do it or shouldnt do it - Im just replying to your statement that children with SENs dont get into Private Schools. They do.

Searching for the right school isnt just a Private school requirement, state schools differ and arent all right for all children. All parents search to some degree and where SEN children are concerned Ive found that unfortunately most aspects of my DS's life takes alot of searching and research. Id search to the end of the world to make his life easier.

There certainly are private schools which even specialise in SEN children but agreement different types of school may have different criteria eg may be happy with genius type aspergers children who will be A* all the way but the school is academically selective (in state or private system) so not if the SEN means they are not well above average IQ. Indeed you cannot go to my sons' school if you are a girl for example. lots of schools have different criteria in state and private systems. I don't think that's wrong - it's just giving parents choice.

Also I don't think talking about morals on these things helps us much. You can aruge it's morally wrong to take up a state school place if you could get a full time job and afford to pay for private school and by staying in the state system you are a kind of bed blocker, taking money from the mouths of the poor; or you can aruge private school children are so wonderful they should forced into the classes of chidlren in the state system so they rub off on them or some such argument.

User - I am aware of this, this is why I used the words "in our area". And I'm afraid, probably unwittingly, that you exactly illustrate what I mean.

There may well be children with SEN in your DC's school. They may be well supported. But most schools that select will screen out kids they don't fancy supporting for whatever reason. So when people say that x or y selective school has 'good' or 'great' support bear in mind it's only accessible to those who pass the (NT) test. Which is a bit like having high quality physio facilities up four flights of stairs.

Raaaaah - also our experience

But most schools that select will screen out kids they don't fancy supporting for whatever reason.

Yes, selective academic schools filter out the bottom 70% of kids in ability/intelligence and don't take kids with SEN that they can't support (even if such SEN kids are high ability). Selective schools are, by definition, selective. If you are not OK with this, then don't look at selective schools.

(In an ideal world I personally wouldn't send my DC to a selective school but it turned out that the selective school was the one that met their needs and that they were really not OK in the state options available.)

I think it is worth pointing out that the 'dregs' poster is still on here, albeit under a different name.

One point that so many seem to miss, except Bertrand is that if you select out the top say 25% by ability in the state sector, the remaining schools cannot, by definition, be 'comprehensive'. That is not to say they can't be great schools - but they have to take everyone, the academically inclined who didnt fancy the selective option; the able but not high-fliers; the below average; the ones who are never going to pass maths or english gcse even with a tail wind behind them, plus those who are disenchanted with education for whatever reason and are just not school-shaped.

So a school which serves its community like that is never going to be what people seem to want - ooh, 85% A-C inc English and Maths. BUT they turn out lovely, well-developed students who are encouraged to flourish in the way that suits them best. Shouldnt that be what we are hoping for??

Tiger no you couldn't make that moral argument since schools get a significant amount of funding based on pupil numbers, so by going out of the state system you're leeching money out, not allowing more to be divided among the deserving poor. Each pupil going private represents a loss of around £4k to whichever state school the child would have attended. Arguably.

In general I do think private equals better. The main reasons I think this ranked by reason:

1. Greater aspiration and ambition is bred in the private sector so children aim
   Higher

2. Higher levels of confidence instilled in individuals so they believe they can actually achieve aspirations and ambitions

3. Better tools to achieve aspirations and ambitions : schooling, exam practise, social behaviour, sports/art/music facilities, career and university advice and direction.

4. Social standing and networking begins at the school which continues into university (broadened social network) and then again in the working world - essentially nepotism -
   Morally dubious but it does exist.

I'm afraid I would live in a smaller house but then its a balance between you all having a happy life with the odd holiday and luxury.