Are we wasting our money?

[angelnumber9]

It appears that every year the results gap between state and independent schools narrows and this seems even more defined with 2017 figures. Combined with the incentives that top universities give to state school students I am struggling to find good reasons to carry on paying our hard earned dosh for DC's education.
To give this some perspective I have checked out local independent school results and compared them with some of the state school alternatives and it makes interesting reading. I have said before that we are very lucky to have such a good collection of schools in Shropshire. It has to be said that we can only just afford the less expensive ones such as Wrekin or Shrewsbury High School and I appreciate that like all things you get what you pay for but if you care to cost it out purely on a results v price basis there seems very little point in spending your money.....or am I missing something really important?
Having watched selective schools like the gdst's Shrewsbury High school continue to plummet down the A level league tables for the last 5 years (from 63rd with 61% A/A in 2014 to 255th and 26% this year) I know that many parents are again asking what their money is being spent on. Especially when non selective schools such as Moreton Hall and Adcote are roaring ahead (Moreton is an all round school monumentally up 118 places to 91st place with 53%, more that twice that of its High School rival. State grammar schools like Newport Girls High, Adams and Thomas Telford score consistently above 50% A/A and at least four Shrewsbury Sixth form students have achieved Oxbridge places. The Marches sixth form has 22% and William Brooke's 24%. Shrewsbury School and Concord (like the High School selective but far more expensive) have broken their own records. Concord unbelievably managing 84% A/A with 45% at A. Shrewsbury School continue to publish detailed exam results and leavers destinations on their very informative website.
Perhaps I'm too caught up in figures but when Shrewsbury High School recently held an Oxbridge conference in an attempt to win an award (sadly I'm told none of their girls have secured offers there since 2015) I can understand why parents are livid. But they now have a new dance school so perhaps girls will be able to waltz their way into Oxbridge??? (sorry, couldn't resist!).
So I am very frustrated about it all and seriously considering cutting my losses. I hate to see our school fees being spent on ridiculous projects when the focus should be on raising standards. With what I would save in fees I could probably buy a small house which may be a far better investment for my children in the long term.........anyone?

Well you can't guarantee anything by sending your kiddo to a private school. They might not get to Oxbridge because that process is pretty tough and many very bright kids don't get in. Your child might not even want it. They may not even be academic and their skills might be elsewhere. All private schools provide is platform, but it can't promise anything - there are too many variables.

Not getting to Oxbridge or RG doesn't mean failure, but it may feel that way when you have paid a lot of money. I think many send their children to private school thinking it should mean a certain life path - but it really just increases the chances a bit.

I tutor and have been shocked by the amount of private school children who are behind their peers in state schools.
As others have said parental involvement is massively important to children’s education.
Private schools can employ teachers without many qualifications which I think is also a factor. I do think people think their kids are getting a better education in the private sector but I would not say that’s always true.

* I know we've made a mistake and should never really have tried, I'm not from that world. But I hope we are in agreement that we all want the best for our children, just seems in my case that it was a little misguided and we should have stayed with state sector*

You’ve already decided OP. And honestly, I think you’re trying to find evidence to validate your decision. You don’t need to! If your daughter is unhappy then move her. —besides, looking at university places and career success would tell you a totally different story on state vs private value—

Families with extra income generally have extra options available to them. They may choose a gap year, or to apply to universities out of country.

My own feeling is that in an age of soaring university costs, housing costs (ouch) and everyone having to put more into their pensions, private school education really does have to justify itself in terms of "more or less guaranteed" significantly increased lifetime earnings. Otherwise not worth it.

Because unless you are simply rolling in money, any money spent on private school fees is money that can't be spent on uni or helping your child start an investment fund/put down a deposit on a property.

If I was 35, living in the expensive southeast and had a load of student debt and my parents couldn't help me out with buying a property either, and the reason for this was "Well, we sent you to a private school.... and okay, sure, you didn't actually do any better in terms of exams/career than your friends who went to decent state schools, but you got a holistically well-rounded experience and lovely green fields and a nice orchestra and a wonderful drama club out of it...!"

... well, I'd feel a bit cheesed off, to be honest. And I'd be thinking that what would make me feel holistically well-rounded right now, would be if I could buy a house/flat and not have a millstone of debt round my neck.

Of course, if one is really rich and can easily pay for ALL these things for all your kids, then this is all immaterial.

I don't know many people like that, though. The only people I know in the UK who are using private schools right now, are doing so because they are in areas where there is a lot of pressure on school places and they only got offered terrible/very-far-away state school places. So they opted to go private until either a better SS place comes up or they move or their child goes on to the next stage of education (secondary/sixth form).

Well, we sent you to a private school.... and okay, sure, you didn't actually do any better in terms of exams/career than your friends who went to decent state schools, but you got a holistically well-rounded experience and lovely green fields and a nice orchestra and a wonderful drama club out of it...!"

This is why we moved from private to state. Don't miss it.

I would also say you get a holistically more rounded experience by being educated amongst people from all walks of life not just those who are rich enough to pay or bright enough to get an assisted place.

Not all independents are good. Some use unqualified teachers who would be eaten alive in state sector. They have poor quality teaching and survive (just) by people assuming a nice blazer and cap means better.
The good independents are highly selective so, of course, should provide a heightened experience particularly considering the different level of funding. It's the same with many London state schools - much higher funding levels and overtly or covertly selective.
There are undoubtedly huge advantages in passing through a top independent; an inner confidence that com s from knowing you are part of an elite, networks; wide opportunities and incredible career support. Rich friends who widen your networks further. Amazing resources, generally good behaviour and a focus on learning - a culture of success.
What the state schools can offer is different but as valuable throughout life. She ate educated children do better at university, statistically. They learn to succeed in a tougher environment sometimes. The learn that life has a huge spectrum of wealth, attitude and ability: that supporting less able classmates improves rather than drops your grades. Good state schools offer good enrichment activities (although not comparable to good independents).
Many sports are undoubtedly better in independent and the curriculum is less restricted. States might offer sports and activities not considered suitable by independents. Kickboxing, Karate, ultimate frisbee and football might feature in state sector with some academies even having direct links with football club's youth teams. You are more likely to play high level rugby, cricket, tennis or eventing from an independent.
Bright children can succeed from any school - parental attitude and aspirations are far stronger indicators of success than the school.

"The good independents are highly selective" - don't agree with this. Good independents have good teachers and help children (no matter what their ability) to improve and succeed. In fact if they are highly selective - this suggests that they want the easy route....

"Bright children can succeed from any school" - also do not agree with this. You can have a very bright child who for example has dyslexia and needs to be in an environment which enables them to flourish. Not all children are the same. My bright child was written off in his previous school (despite having a high IQ) because of his dyspraxia and an ineffective class teacher.

Most children who go to fee paying schools have interested, involved parents. The reality is, that if they went to a good state school, they would very likely do well. The majority of kids in fee paying schools cannot by definition be in the very top ones. For these kids, the benefit of being in a fee paying rather than good state school is pretty small and marginal.
The uplift in grades for a bright student with interested parents will be pretty limited - people often speak of a difference of a couple of grades across the total number of subjects taken.
The benefit of the wider extra curricular offer might not be as great as you think. Not everyone takes up every opportunity available. If you are really serious about a sport or music or other activity, you still need to get involved outside of school to access the really top level stuff - this happens through parents pushing it through, often starting early on. State school educated kids might be less represented in certain sports, but if their parents are inteterested and they have talent, they can get there too....and of course this whole issue only applies to a tiny minority.

If the alternative to paying is a crap school, then the benefit of paying is likely to be more significant. However, most people who pay have enough money to live near the better state schools, are interested enough in education and have bright enough children, so that actually the benefit gained from the majority of fee paying schools which cannot all be top notch is pretty small. For most, that limited gain in relation to the significant cost simply doesn't make sense. It only really makes sense to pay for a limited gain if the cost to you as a family is tiny and the fees are a drop in the ocean. Increasingly this isn't the case and why lots if sensible people choose not to pay, but to trust the good state schools, invest time and money into enriching their kids through a variety of means and put away a bit of cash for uni or a house deposit.

Logans, you are absolutely right and restingwitchface, thank you. The response to this thread has given me so much reassurance.

yaz the study you cited has been discredited.

Even The Guardian who naturally leapt to report it had to offer a mealy mother rebuttal.

The figures used in the study were incorrect in that the numbers were inversed.

However, even if the whole thing wasn't a monumental cock up, it wasn't actually evidence of state schools offering better preparation for university. That was the leap that many wanted to make (understandable).

The unpalatable truth is that is that those educated in the state system are under represented on the most selective courses at the most selective universities. Pretty much everyone involved agrees and spends time and effort trying to rectify that situation as best they can.

However, I don't know anyone involved in widening participation who is not voicing concerns about the current budget cuts and teacher crises. This is not about extras this is about basics. We are looking at the brink of a two tier system, where the majority of children in the UK are offered an education that is not fit for purpose.

And no amount of middle class parenting will bridge the gap.

My dcs are at a state comp, with orchestras, drama, sport (to national level), green fields, STEM and MFL provision, and all the other 'extras' that many on this thread seem to think happen only in the private sector.

In sixth form the students continue their extracurricular activities whilst working on their academic studies. A high proportion go to Russell Group or equivalent unis, and around 6 each year to Oxbridge. This is from a non selective comp in a relatively poor area. The Sutton trust (looks at inequality issues) cited it as a good example of state education which is entirely achievable.

I think the main reason our comp does well is because there is a dearth of private schools in the area; children would have to travel a long way to find a good private school. The result is that children of all abilities and all backgrounds get the same education with excellent outcomes. For example the child with two medical consultant parents are in the top set for further maths with the child whose mum is on minimum wage.

I went to medical school from a comp. My siblings went private and had exactly the same outcome, except they did Latin for a few years. I hate the social segregation that private schools create, it is bad for society.

I went to a conference on sociak mobility in education a few years ago where one of the speakers said he thought the increase in school fees generally would have a positive impact on widening participation at university.

Since the traditional middle classes have now largely been priced out of independent education, they would put pressure on the government to improve and properly fund state education.

When I saw him this summer, as we commiserated over the fall in numbers of state schooled students offered places at various top institutions, he wondered why there was no pressure on the government and why the budget cuts had been introduced without much opposition, especially from middle class parents with skin in the game. This thread is the answer.

He also pointed out that UG degrees were now so devalued that it almost didn't matter. And that the real issue in educational disparity lies at post graduate level.

But that's a whole other thread...

Regardless of whether the numbers were correct or not in the "how state educated students fare at uni"-study, surely the reasonable interference to draw from it (seeing that they have all had to sit the same exams) would be that the state school students will on average have had to put more effort and/or intelligence into passing the same exams, so that on average an A from a state school may actually represent harder work/greater potential/more commitment?
Not that state schools somehow magically produce better students.

But we are talking averages here: there must be state schools and family environments where students don't have to overcome any deprivation or prejudice to get a handful of A's heavily academic subjects; where it's just a normal thing to do.

hairvcut
"When I saw him this summer, as we commiserated over the fall in numbers of state schooled students offered places at various top institutions, he wondered why there was no pressure on the government and why the budget cuts had been introduced without much opposition, especially from middle class parents with skin in the game. This thread is the answer."

I don't follow?

"But we are talking averages here: there must be state schools and family environments where students don't have to overcome any deprivation or prejudice to get a handful of A's heavily academic subjects; where it's just a normal thing to do."

Well, yes of course........

Why do people keep paying for fairly average schools which confer no significant advantage on their kids, but cost an awful lot?

I conclude that this can partly be answered by the fact that lots of parents actually enjoy doing it and gain enjoyment from it. It isn't a purely rational and logical choice based on weighing financial cost against end grades or financial cost against end grades and wider opportunities.

Paying gives lots of parents peace of mind. They feel they have taken action and this in itself makes them feel more in control of education. It might not in reality make any difference to the outcome, but parents are interested in the full duration of education which is many years - many don't want to feel stressed and worried for 7 or 14 years and by paying find some of the burden is lifted. Not entirely logical, but a reality. Others find they get pleasure from spending their cash on something which allows their child to enjoy shiny facilities, to access lots of clubs easily and play matches with delicious match teas. They just see their kids enjoying these things and this makes it worth it for them. And they enjoy being part of a circle of parents who are experiencing the same,mor perhaps even knowing that their kids are experiencing something a bit different to their state school educated friends children - so some get pleasure from knowing they are having something others don't or can't.

All of these things partly explain why people start paying or continue to pay for something which isn't always materially better than the free alternative. The less the burden of the fees is and the less sacrifice in other areas of life due to paying fees, the more powerful the effect of these other factors.
The choice to send kids to a fee paying school isn't entirely rational or logical. On one level it is an emotional decision and as much about satisfying the emotional needs of the parent as the educational needs of the child.

I don't want to speak for Carl, but I've posted before that I think aspirational middle class parents' emphasis on education, education, education is actually doing them and their children a disservice in some ways ATM.

Basically if you believe that education is critical, and that there are good schools and bad schools, and if that POV has been reinforced through government policy emphasising "parental choice" for decades, coming to the realisation that your children may have actually had/be having a suboptimal education is actually really challenging.

Saying "my kids school is chronically underfunded and they aren't doing enough subjects, their teachers are demotivated, underpaid, and less skilled than they should be" is really emotionally difficult if you have been culturally raised to believe that education is the most important thing in the world and "good parents make good educational choices for the children to have good lives".

To give another example that fits with the thread and is easier to see - how many parents must there be who have forked out for fees for a not-very-impressive private school, for their children to come away with not-very-impressive results? Do most of those parents admit it? Some do, and fair play to them for overcoming the sunk cost fallacy - but most don't, most will try to rationalise the decision as a good one by moving goal posts (sport facilities!) or kidding themselves about how dreadful the state school options were.

It's the same thing with the absolutely shocking underfunding of the state system. Sharp elbowed middle class parents cannot bring themselves to admit that their kids education is being undersold, because their kid's education is too important to be bad.

I think it depends on what you've got in your area.
I disagree that the extra curricular of sport, music, drama and dance is better or as good in the state sector as the private.
The LA doesn't attract the coaches, teachers, specialists etc the same as the private sector does.
I'm not saying state provision is particularly poor, but it's miles from the standard operating in the private/public sector.

I pay and my kid has a better accent than me. That's for sure.
However I use private school to compensate for being away a lot. The small classes mean a slightly more family feel and they have long long hours.

HOldmeCloser - excellent points.
I agree that the emotional involvement of parents in education leads to a lot of decisions which are not entirely rational, but emotional.
What you say fits with my post of a few minutes ago, just looking at slightly different emotional angles on education.

holdmecloser you can speak for me, since you do so very nicely .

When I'm feeling generous, I do understand that parents, especially middle class parents, find it hard to accept what is happening in state education and how it is having an effect on their DC.

However, when I'm feeling less generous, I observe unattractive arrogance. That somehow it doesn't matter that schools can't offer further maths, or don't have enough teachers if your DC have a house 'filled with books' and you play radio four in the car .

A few years ago there was a show on the telly. It was called something like How the Rich Get All The Best Jobs.

One of the commentators was Tony Parsons who made the point that a lot of middle class children were not greatly advantaged any more. That the education they were receiving was way off what the DC of the rich were receiving and more in line with the provision for working class children. He observed that you'd expect the middle classes to be making a bigger fuss really.

That's the one and only time I've ever agreed with Tony Parsons.