Are private schools worth the £££?

[JamdaniSari]

Hi all :)

We were discussing this at work yesterday and now that I am a mother it really got me thinking.

Are private schools worth the £££?

What if you couldn't afford to send your kids there and they attended an 'average' local state school. How would you go about ensuring they achieved their potential, were well rounded and had the confidence etc which their peers at private school would be expected to possess?

Thanks

I'm sure there are many variables but yes for me the money is worth it.

Having wrap around care onsite along with all the ECAs imaginable has been a huge benefit to me as I work FT so no having to drive across the city for classes.

The small class sizes mean a much more individual approach and I know all the other children and their parents well. The teachers are enthusiastic and committed and participate in many of the EC clubs and events which I think is a credit.

@UnPocoLoco2 We aren't getting ourselves into debt. We are buying a less expensive house.

It has been worth every penny but I can only speak for the primary stage. I think that if you have a bright kid they can thrive in most environments, but DS1 is summer born, was late to all milestones, and was not one of those ‘very bright kids’ that you read about here on MN.

In theory we would have gone to the good state round the corner. We had convinced ourselves that this was the right thing to do. However, when we looked around we realised that it would have been 30 kids in a fancy portakabin. He is a quiet boy and he would have been totally drowned out by the fantastic but loud and advanced September born girls, and the kids who just ran riot on the open days. And they had just bolted in an extra class which they had never done before

So we reprioritised our money and sent him to the local prep. 16 in a class maximum. And he has had an amazing time. He had additional support in Pre prep and has now grown in confidence, he’s in the top set through hard graft.
He has also had amazing opportunities in school and has developed interests in some minority sports as he’s not brilliant at traditional ball games.

Most importantly he has been very happy at school. And that reassures us that we made the right choice.

This is such a complex question and virtually impossible to definitively answer. So fwiw here is my humble opinion. I was educated privately and got into a good university. However, I haven’t been especially successful, partly because of my total lack of ambition and focus and not deciding what I really wanted to do. My dad says it was worth all the school fees because I got a good degree which is always a good thing to have, plus I have amazing lifelong friends as a result. With my own children, my philosophy has been ‘go big or go home’. Ie. I picked what I considered to be the top schools for the kids rather than something still private and more low key. There isn’t a huge difference in fees between private schools and the more well known, established ones are more likely to be able to offer you a bursary if you need it. My husband wasn’t privately educated, mainly for ideological reasons from his parents. He is highly intelligent with a high IQ but dyslexic and wasn’t diagnosed at school. He looks at the education our kids are getting and wishes very much that he had had similar opportunities as a child. Having said that, I have friends who have done extremely well but went to (selective, high performing) state schools and grammar schools. And I know people who have moved house to get their kids into a particular high performing grammar school. Hope some of this helps.

We started private from nursery age which was very good and the right decision at the time. Then when the children were 6 and 9 we decided to relocate into an area with better schools. The dc are now 9 and 12 and doing very well at the outstanding local schools and we all get to enjoy our large house in a lovely area (rather than being cramped into a smaller house with no cash to do anything other than pay constantly increasing school fees despite stagnant wages)....
I know which scenario I prefer.

Generally yes. Obviously some private schools are terrible and some state schools are outstanding. But, all things being equal it’s worth it just to know that you are doing the right thing and paying for the costs of your lifestyle choices instead of lumping the taxpayer with the bill.

“it just to know that you are doing the right thing and paying for the costs of your lifestyle choices instead of lumping the taxpayer with the bill”

I would choose the school where my child is not a minority in terms of academic cohort. And the experience of getting my child into the very best universities or vocational courses.if it's not for my child, I'd want to see the school has their eye on the ball in pushing talent. It raises aspirations for all. I'd want to see a clutch of Oxbridge and top Russel group and I'd want to see a good number level of the hard subjects taken at A level especially by the girls. I'd also push hard for the school to open its doors to industry leaders, tech summits, conferences, and experiences for its pupils. You will get that more easily if the parents can offer it or help the school navigate attendance and apply for corporate funding. If the school is not ambitious then I wouldn't apply.

Guess it depends what you hope for from school education and your financial circumstances.

I've had two at private until year 11 and two at state. I'm moving one from state to private for year 9.

I don't think you necessarily get any better a levels out of it (although I'm always a bit shocked when kids with excellent gcses end up doing business studies photography a levels and want to do forensics at uni (four of dds mates, there must be hundreds of them)

I don't really know why I'm doing it tbh but he definitely doesn't have something that my private educated kids had in year 8.

The consistency was really fab at private - same teachers, diary all planned at least a term in advance and barely ever changed,.matches always on and only cancelled under exceptional circumstances, everyone knew where they were and what they were doing, loads of positive praise (merits, prefects, awards, cups). The day is longer which suits me as I work. He can stay in school until 10pm if he wants and I just text him to say I'm coming, so really convenient. Teachers and staff seemed far more genuinely interested in them as people, came up with really good ideas for things to study. The private school is less white, lots of black and Asian students although they are all from a fairly narrow socio economic band. Very very little disruption to classes, it's cool to do well.

However the teachers at the state school are yoing and dynamic and a few are really lovely talented people, the social mix is better and it's free! The disruption is really getting to ds though and hes looking forward to moving on.

I have heard from a reliable education source that they are worth it for many after 11, but that they add no value before that

that's a ridiculous comment out of context. For a start, if secondary is competitive entry then getting into a good through school at 4 means you lose 1-2 years of tutoring and all the associated stress. Private indie primary has loads of advantages in terms of class sizes and extra curricular activities IMO.

Once in secondary, the attention paid to university entrance is amazing. For example at one school I know the would-be medics get one lesson per week for a whole year dedicated to getting into medical school.

A former director of admissions for Eton is fond of giving talks about how you don’t need to go private until the age of 10 or 11; before then. good state school is fine.

Personally I think whether that’s true depends on the child (and where you live - not everyone has a good state primary on the doorstep).

My DS has been to both and I think the private has been better for him (and me). It’s not so much about extra curricular stuff but the way the school is run, such as:

• smaller, better behaved, less chaotic classes so more time spent productively and less time waiting around for children to sit down and behave
• MUCH more information from the school about what the children are learning each week so parents can support it at home
• reading every day with a teacher or TA and a new reading book every day
• ability to email the head or any teacher - and they respond quickly
• parents evenings every term, at realistic times you can actually make
• reports every term
• better run after school clubs
• school lunches which are actually edible

smaller, better behaved, less chaotic classes so more time spent productively and less time waiting around for children to sit down and behave

It must have amazing SEN support? The 'better' private primary school hereabouts just tells parents of children they consider likely to be in any way challenging to send them elsewhere. Like their local state school, perhaps.

marching i know, a lot of private schools do this. Sadly that does often lead to less disruption so better teaching.

Most private schools certainly ask SEN children with behaviour issues to leave! Or they don’t accept them in the first place.

Small Class sizes might suit some children but there isn’t much evidence to say the teaching is more effective. The reason is that it can mask poor teaching. Children don’t learn everything directly from the teacher. They work collaboratively, they experiment and they learn from each other. One of the most effective methods for helping under performing DC is peer to peer learning. The Sutton Trust looked into how PP money is spent and this was the most effective method to help learning (way above adult intervention) so small classes are not always best and certainly can lead to friendship issues.

Children in private schools tend to have very engaged parents and this is a major reason they do well. Engaged parents at state schools also have DC who do well. Classes of 30 don’t stop DC going to Oxbridge later on! What really matters is top quality teaching. You can get that in both sectors but private schools can be very behind the curve and set hours and hours of prep for young children so it can be bleak for the less enthused child!

My DD attended a private school for Early Years. Like many parents, we realised the quality of teaching in the rest of the school was pretty dire. My DDs cohort went from 36 in YR to 4 in Y6. Private most certainly isn’t always better!

If you're talking about academics then a class of 30 can work just as well at least in terms of getting them across a line of a standardised test. Want to teach things like critical thinking that require children to speak to an adult? That's were 30 falls down completely. All it takes is a few in those 30 to be disruptive and they will hoover up a great majority of the teachers time. Social and emotional development is arguably more important in the early years and is far easier and more effective in a class of 18 than 30. People have been led to believe that because the academic results of standardised tests can be achieved that a large class size is fine. I don't know any teacher who would take a class of 30 over 18 and thinks that it's optimal for the kids.

As for SEN I have an autistic son who got zero help in a state school because he was high functioning. Because he wasn't disruptive there was no help. He's absolutely thrived at a private school. State schools are woefully underfunded. It's not their fault. They've continued to do an amazing job with a third of the resource they should have.

smaller, better behaved, less chaotic classes so more time spent productively and less time waiting around for children to sit down and behave

It must have amazing SEN support? The 'better' private primary school hereabouts just tells parents of children they consider likely to be in any way challenging to send them elsewhere. Like their local state school, perhaps.

Actually this is not the case. It’s a non selective school and there is a higher proportion of SEN in his private class than his state class (1 child with autism v 1 with ADHD).
What makes the difference is smaller class size and higher pupil-teacher ratio; accessibility of the teachers so parents and teachers can work together to resolve issues quickly; and lastly school leadership. The head is better. He knows the name of every child in the school, and is very accessible to parents. I don’t think the state head knew my child’s name and used to hide away from parents. Same sized school, same number of kids.

I think the thing that makes the biggest difference is interested parents not the money spent or not spent on fees.

Some parents know nothing about education and aren't willing to put any leg work in and think that throwing fees at the issue must result in a good outcome. They think all fee paying schools must somehow be better and do t put the legwork into investigating schools properly of either the state or independent type but choose based on rather spurious reasons . YOud be surprised how many choose a Prep partly based on uniform.

When parents are genuinely informed and interested in education I really do think they can make it work. Some of those parents will choose a great independent for their kids - it will be chosen because it suits their children and provides things which will benefit their particular children, not just because it is fee paying or offers zillions of activities that their child will never do.

And the similarly educated but slightly less affluent parent can do equally well for their child. This parent has probably investigated independents and realised they can't afford them, but has also investigated the local schools well in advance and is making a plan for education. Yes, they sometimes move house for a particular school or they find out the admissions criteria far enough in advance to meet them and they then meet them. Their children go to extra curricular activity not becaue they are making up for not going to Independnet school but because those parents genuinely value music and sport at a high level and other activities. Those children might be playing an instrument and climbing and attending a Coding holiday course and going on a ski trip and going to the library.....the parents are putting in the time and effort to find out what is available and organising it - some would say that is far more valuable in terms of input than paying a set if school fees and then leaving the provision to the mercy of the school - yes the school might provide lots, but it won't be quite the same as an absolutely tailor made extra curricular programme that a parent who has the time and inclination can provide. Often for a really top notch experience, you need to be involved out of school anyway - so county sport, the national youth orchestra etc are all out of school things and although here are lots of independently educated children in those, state school children whose parents have given them opportunities outside of school are there too. And when a parent has been involved in helping their child look at A Level courses and choosing universities,mrathrather than abdicating responsibility to the school because they have paid for that service, the child will always get a more personalised and invested experience than a school can give. A competent, educated and invested parent can gather expert information that they might be lacking and absolutely tailor it. Nit doesn't have to be inferior to what might be gained in an independent and could often be bettering. It's about who the parents are and their values I think at the end of the day.

And what about the child of such parents who does find themselves in the disappointing school and who cannot go elsewhere? Even then the interested and involved parent can make a big difference. They can pursue the school about specific issues, be informed about the importance of GCSE and A Level choices and provide tutoring if needed, plus can probably provide at least some support themselves. And they can still be providing the extra curricular opportunities and helping their child develop a work ethic that is so important and money often can't buy. So it might not be such an easy ride, but the children from those backgrounds can reach good Unis too. Their expectations, wider experience and values can make a vast amount of difference. I would say that child is better off and more prepared for life by far than the unusual, very poor child from a disinterested family who somehow gets a full bursary to a private school but who still has parents who don't know about education or actively support their child or provide an environment of high expectations. Culture at home counts for an awful lot and I think people over-value the role of paying fees and forget the impact they themselves have.

Sadly, I think it's the children from the disinterested backgrounds that we need to worry about, not the stretched middle classes who can't afford fees and who worry their children might be missing out on something. Those children have all the resources needed to be successful if their parents put their minds to it.

I don't think its always interested parents. Dd is a day girl at a predominantly full boarding school where most of the parents have zero influence over the academics. It has a huge proportion of As and A*s at gcse.

I do agree with bubbles here:

Small Class sizes might suit some children but there isn’t much evidence to say the teaching is more effective. The reason is that it can mask poor teaching

Dd went to a godawful private school with 7 in a maths class, there were only 17 children in the whole year and it was terrible. Despite 7 in a class and high fees we still had to tutor her for a C in maths. Shite.

I’d say though that interested parents make sure they are informed and choose a school carefully. And they manage to know if things aren’t quite right.
And I’d say too that education and creating a whole person isn’t just grades. So it’s also about your values and aspirations and approach - a lot of that comes from your parents and who they are, whatever your type of school or if you’re actually only at home on holidays.

In independent schools there are often some children who are basically neglected - absolutely not many. Their parents have thrown some money at education and then show little interest in their children. They aren’t inputting into values and ethos and things like being resilient and determined. Schools can do so much but parents can always do more. Some of these neglected children (in state schools too of course) might get fantastic grades because of school but really struggle later as they haven’t had the input to develop real charCter.

And I know that boarding school means being more hands-off. That’s not a problem. It isn’t a sign of lack of interest or knowledge about child.

I’m just saying school type isn’t S big a definer as people often think, but background is. Lots and lots of families who can’t afford fees produce children with great grades who’ve had wide experiences and who have determination and grit. Going to a good state school or even a mediocre one with interested, capable parents behind you is a recipe for success in the broadest sense...grades plus all the other things which matter so much.

@WombatChocolate YOud be surprised how many choose a Prep partly based on uniform
Seriously ?! Do you know someone who's done this?!

I think the only absolute advantage with private is facilities. And that's a no-brainer - there is more money and therefore there are better facilities. I went to a state school (90s) but did music and drama at a private school (as in I was in their choirs and school plays - it was a boys school and they recruited girls mostly from two local girls independents but for various reasons I also got involved) and whilst my school had a hall, theirs had a theatre and a concert hall. I still got the same GCSE results, and better A Level results, than the boyfriend I had at the time who was at the independent school.

I teach drama in the state system now and have always found the same - schools I've taught in have a hall but local privates have theatres and all the tech you could possibly want. I get facility envy every time I'm there, but my own kids have still performed in these place because they hire them out to local youth theatres.

I don't think you always get better teaching in a private school. There are good, bad, inspiring and lazy teachers in all sectors. My own children are at a state grammar and I know from their books, from parents evenings, and from being a teacher in the same town that there is a lot of lazy teaching there - if you're teaching biddable, bright girls whose parents will pick up the slack and are interested in them getting a good education, then you can get away with being lazy and a bit dull. I would imagine it's the same in private schools - plenty of fantastic teachers but also it's easier to be a bit rubbish in a school where the results will be good anyway.

We could afford private but I don't want to. We spend money on extra-curricular activities (DDs do music (one flute, one piano), choir, youth theatre and Tai Kwon Do) and on stuff together at the weekend and in the school holidays.

Haha, yes I do know people who said they’d always wanted x school because of the cute red blazers.

People often do think that because they’ve paid they no longer need to think about or engage with their child’s schooling and it is someone else’s full responsibility. That can extend to everything about character development too. I’d just think a child is better off with an engaged parent in a less good school than a fab school with parents who aren’t interested in them and who think their fees have removed any responsibility.

Evil, I think private schools sack useless teachers a lot more quickly than state schools however as the parents complain and the parents because they pay control the school in a sense, so I am not sure the teaching is necessarily worse in fee paying schools.

Xenia, I'm not sure that's necessarily true - or it may be for the really really bad ones. But the dull, mediocre, coasting ones - they probably don't get picked up as such, as they're not subject to Ofsted or the intense tracking /progress systems in the state system. I think it's easier for them to coast and stick with outdated methods without being challenged.

Dd has such a teacher - nice enough, but she says he's not a good teacher. They've raised concerns with the head of English, who says they have similar complaints each year, but she's willing to help them out if need be and not to worry, his classes always get similar results to other classes (ie 60% 9s and most of the rest 7/8s!). Bright girls will work hard, help each other, get outside help if need be so mediocre teachers don't get brought to account. In the state system, I'm pretty sure such a teacher would have much worse results than better ones and it would be picked up on.