Is it OK for parents who can afford private education to take state school places for their DC?

[Schmedz]

asking for a friend....

tashkent my own DD asked me once if she could move to a state school for 6th Form because one of her friends had told her it would be 'easier' to get into university so I don't think your anecdotal evidence is far off the mark!! I told DD that sounded like rubbish to me and she should choose a school she likes because if you're happy you should do your best, but maybe that's also a bit naive??

That said, I wouldn't have thought moving to a grammar school where the intake is highly selective would benefit anyone - surely universities look at the average grades achieved in particular schools to see whether certain candidates exceed those standards. Poorly or even 'averagely' performing kids in a grammar might even be worse off because the offers would be so high for anyone capable of getting into that school in the first place.

It was getting a place at a 'sink school' (and being unable to afford to move to the catchment area of a 'naice' state comp) which prompted my DH and I to send our kids private in the first place - I can't imagine anyone would choose a worse environment for their child's crucial final two years than experienced up until that time... Most 6th Forms don't have hugely restricted catchment areas (if at all) so maybe this is partly the reason people look outside private at that stage - before then it's more of an issue where you live and you just don't get as much choice.

“ tashkent my own DD asked me once if she could move to a state school for 6th Form because one of her friends had told her it would be 'easier' to get into university ”

It makes me so angry that people think this! Like the mumsnetter who posted seriously that the A levels done in state schools were earlier than those done private schools....

Bertrand !!!!! What is wrong with people? Good grades at A Levels are the result of damn hard work on the student's part!! All the 'top' teaching and expensive tutoring means nothing if the kid doesn't work and have reasonable academic aptitude (and no factors of any kind which could cause underperformance)

Obviously not universal, but I know of one medicine course that reserves places for fully state educated non selective school pupils. I can’t remember if it was St George’s or Kings, but one of those two. There may be more.

The most important factor in getting an interview for most medical schools is the applicants score in the entrance tests ie BMAT and UKCAT, as most applicants have good grades / predictions.

These tests are identical for all candidates regardless of background.

Most University widening access policies focus on schools / home addresses in the bottom 20% and other under represented groups, such as those who are care experienced. It’s usually not as simple as state vs. private .

Such pupils might be selected for interview at a slightly lower mark than those from schools who sent more pupils to university. But it’s only a small difference, usually 10%.

So moving from a public school to a grammar for A levels will not increase your child’s chances significantly . You’d need to move your child to a very poor school for at least 4 years AND make sure they got a good score in the relevant test.

It’s really not simple to game the system. University admissions officers are not that stupid.

Imagine a country where state schools were only open to those who own below a certain amount (shudder)

Before the state took over education all schools were independent and parents contributed to the costs often according to their means.

We have means testing in most state provision of services, I imagine (but don’t politically agree with) that education and health will be like this by the end of the century.

We could afford private at a push, but prefer to not have the stress of paying school fees, and send DC to local state schools.

Nothing wrong with opting for state education.

Generally you have to tick several boxes to get a contextual offer for uni; deprived postcode, low achieving school, first in family to go to uni, care leaver etc. Going to a leafy comp instead of an Indy will not cut it, despite the rumour mill. The only way it could help would be if the uni was trying to balance it's state v private student numbers and it was choosing between two candidates with equally good qualifications, that could help in A very few cases.

And the thought that private school pupils and parents would even think of trying to scam their way into the provision made for disadvantaged kids is just utterly, utterly repulsive.

Going to a State 6th form having been at Private school up to GCSE does not meet the UCAS criteria so is not available as part of the system gaming in the UK

Parents who can afford private school are paying the taxes that allow the poor to get state school
therefore they have a legal and moral right to use it if they wish

Of course! We all pay tax so it's irrelevant whether you could theoretically afford private. I wouldn't want private for mine even if I could afford it, and I respect people who could afford it and choose not to because they want their kids to have a more rounded experience. But equally I respect people who can and do choose private if they think it's best for their own children. It's a free country.

I am feeling increasingly irritated by the smugness of people on here who ‘would/do not choose private education even if they could/can’. Great that you have local state schools to choose from; we don’t all have them available and you may feel differently if you were in a position of little choice. Here in the (rural) north our local independent school is fairly ‘average’, there are no selective state schools and our local state secondary is poor (with no 6th form).

Not as irritated as I get by the lack of imagination of people who think that private education available to any but a tiny minority of the population..

@GoAndAskDaddy I'm not smug. I didn't 'choose from' state schools - my kids go to the nearest one. It happens to be good, which is lucky, but they would go there even if it wasn't so good because that's all we can realistically afford and they wouldn't get in on distance criteria anywhere else. If you've decided you don't like your local state option and have chosen to spend your money on private education as you feel it's the best fit for your child, then more power to you (as I said above, I respect your decision). But not really on to call me smug for being in a different situation! I wouldn't send my children if I had the money because I prefer them to encounter a broader mix of society. Respect my choice as I do yours, please.

Why would you “respect someone‘a decision” to go private?

Or does “respect” not mean what I think it means in this context?

If everyone who could afford to go private out their kids in private schools, the standard of education in the state system would sink.

In general, parents who can afford private school are better educated. Their children generally are brighter because of a mix of nature and nurture.

It's no accident that "better" schools are in more affluent areas. They have parents who are more engaged with the school and attainment, even for those who are not affluent, is better than in the schools in non affluent areas. This would leave the brighter kids from poorer household much worse off and less likely to do well.

I did not say I chose the option to educate my children privately & respect any choices made by anyone; we are all in different situations. My point was we do not all have decent state schools to choose from which seems to be a common theme on MN. “Shall I choose (brilliant) state school A or (great) state school B for my child”. In areas without good state schools (round here), parents who can afford it feel forced into the private sector when if they had a choice they wouldn’t privately educate. Those saying they would never privately educate their children despite being able to afford to may think differently if they didn’t have the same options to choose from.

Yes. Because they pay tax.

I am surprised that you are asking this.

Yes of course. Education is free for all - as it should be.

I can afford, and choose as matter of principle not to send my children to private school. In the Government of AnnaNimmity private schools would be abolished (or at least their charitable status taken away from them).

And my dc are at inner city comprehensives which many people in my area dismiss as rough.

@BertrandRussell I don't understand this thread. Respect in this context means I accept someone else's choice and won't give them a hard time about it. All I am saying is that while I would not educate my children privately even if I had the means, I respect/accept/acknowledge others' right to do so because... freedom of choice! That said I think people who do have the means to do so ought to acknowledge their privilege (which is implicit in having at least £15000 available to spend on school fees, even if I personally question whether private education is actually worth that) and not call me smug for merely voicing the opinion that private may not be worth the cost. In the same way that I am not religious but respect others' right to choose a faith if they wish to. Not 'respect' as in 'wow you've made an awesome choice' but 'respect' as in you have a right to that choice even if it wouldn't be mine.

Ah, I see. I have a huge problem with the word “respect”- to me it suggests having done something good/worthy/laudable. My problem, though! I have to respect (see what I did there?) that for others it just means “accept” with no value judgement at all.

How do you determine who can afford it? We could downsize and move to a shite area and put our DD through private school. But we don’t want to. Even if we could afford both a nice house and private schooling I’d still choose state unless all the available options were appalling.

I could comfortably afford to send my DC to a private school, but they've always been educated in the state sector, technically in a deprived area. They haven't received an inferior education and I've never regretted the decision.

My oldest goes to a private school and she loves it, but I don't think her vastly different younger sister would have such a great time there. We have a state school which is nearer and more convenient frankly, which would suit her sporty personality a lot better. So we might end up having her go state. I think if you have a choice of schools, and money doesn't inform the choice, you should get the best fit for your child.
As for gaming the system, I am pretty offended by the suggestion that it was easier for me to get my place at Cambridge because I went to a school on the 'disadvantage' list.