Did using state schools over private make a difference in your experience?

[Bulblasagnes]

If you chose to use the state sector when you could afford private, for altruistic or idealistic reasons of wanting to participate in the state sector and support the betterment of the state sector for the benefit of everyone, do you think it actually made a difference to other children at your child’s school? Or to the school?

I have always planned on sending my DC to state schools all the way through. I am confident that with our support they would be fine academically and go onto achieve whatever they wanted. DH and I attended top universities and are both in highly skilled professional jobs. To our surprise after a few sharp pay rises we will be in a position to easily afford private secondary when the time comes. In addition, there is an all-round fantastic private school locally (a boys’ school, for DS, the oldest) which has brilliant facilities and teaching in sports, music, drama and so on, in addition to great academics.

Between the two options we have, I still don’t think it will necessarily affect university options, but I do think DS could have a lot of fun and pursue many activities to a high level at the private school, which he wouldn’t be able to at the state. I also think the private school would help with DS’s confidence issues.

My heart is still with the state school option but I want to be sure that depriving my DC of those experiences and possibilities at private school will really make a difference to others. Otherwise it just feels like I’m making them miss out for no reason.

[quote Aboutnow]@Bulblasagnes
Have you read Kate Clanchey’s book ‘Some Kids I have taught and what they taught me’ - I absolutely loved it and so have lots of others I know. Utterly inspiring and so reassuring when she talks about her own experiences of choosing a school for her son. X[/quote]
Yes! This book is absolutely excellent. Should be compulsory reading for everyone.

OP, we could have made changes to our lives in order to priortise private school but we didn't want to. We were both privately educated but don't want that experience for our children. It's too early to say how it's turned out but so far all going well...

So you keep your principles and send your child to a state school when you know that the private school will offer them more. A private school will offer them a chance of smaller classes, possibly a better choice of subjects, pupils who's parents want them to do well and a lot of extra activities.

I have seen kids sent to a state schools and it's been a horrible experience for them. A few pupils in a class that don't want to be their disrupt the whole place. Then if your child is bright/ambitious they get teaches pet/swot. If your child is bright and quite the horrible kids will make their lives a misery. If you want your child do do any extras or drama, music, sport you have to find the time to bring them.

One of my friends went to a private school rather than the local state school and she said to me I am so glad I did. I got better teachers, smaller classes, did extras that improved my confidence and social skills. I have seen her fit in well with all types of people. She had brothers who went private also and they did well. The number of people they met and contacts they made are still benefiting them now.

I have a friend with a big secondary near where they live. My friend has heard and seen a lot of poor things with this school and does not want her kids going their. She looked into other schools and picked a state one a few miles away. Her husband was not on board with her plans until circumstances made him realise that the state school a few miles away is a far better school. It offers each of their kids different things that will help them long term.

From what you said your local private school sounds like it would suit your child well and give them the extra activities after school that they could like.

@Ilady Yes, I think so. As mentioned before the local state has no grounds whatsoever so no matter what its aspirations, it’s never going to be able to offer the range and quality of activities/sports the excellent local private school can (and that’s before you take anything else into consideration). No fields in the local area either, not for 20 mins’ walk.

I would say we are unusual in that respect; I’m pretty sure most secondary schools have some grounds. I can’t imagine school life as an 11 year old without somewhere to run around and play with friends!

It’s yet to be seen how the school will do academically and in terms of other extra curricular provision. I hope for the best, for the sake of its student population. But faced with such extreme choices I don’t feel I can deny my children the chance for a nicer all-round school experience. We didn’t play the system to be next to a sought after state school or get into a religious school (of which there are many in the area and they do well and also seem to have some great facilities including swimming pools??). What I’m realising at my ripe old age is that if you don’t play the game you’re actually worse off as a result. It’s an awful system that allows for so much manipulation and I don’t want my kids to miss out if they don’t have to just because I haven’t worked things in their favour.

We sent DS to a state school whilst we could easily afford private school. I went to a comp and DH attended a really top class private school, that has eye watering fees now of about 30k per year.

DH has that private school polish and confidence that people talk of. It’s great when your gliding round the golf club, popping back for high table at his old college and all that malarkey but it’s a small world. My experiences were with a wider group of people and I personally wanted DS to know people from all walks of life.

DS excelled at his slightly below average state school, he got all A grades at A level last year and has been working doing voluntary and then a paid job while he decides what he wants to do.

One thing I would say about DS is he is chameleon like and can fit in any social situation. He had friends at the state school who were from both the rough estate that’s in the catchment area and the posh roads as those lads called them which is where we live.

I have studied educational outcomes somewhat as a crossover with my own research . It’s less about the school than most people imagine and is much more complicated.

Your children have interested parents, that puts them immediately at a huge advantage. Good luck with your decision.

From your description of both schools, it looks like not only is the private school the much better one,it also suits your Ds better. Seeing as you can easily afford it, I'll go private. If the difference between the two was small, then I'd go state.

In your position, I'll do what our politicians have always done. Get my child into the best possible school I can afford and then find another way to help out the state system.

but rather the idea of sending DC to a normal state school along with other local kids rather than segregating them in a school with lots of middle class/wealthy children.

If you have moral objections to private education then send them to state school.
I’ve never understood this ‘I don’t approve of private education but I use it anyway’.

@Bulblasagnes we know someone who was earning £400k plus when her DC were primary age, but was opposed to paying and looked down on her friends who did. Now her DC are nearly out the other side, she wishes she'd spent the ££ on their education.

@Ilady
I am sure you have read the papers in the last month and seen some of the horror stories that happen at some fee paying schools - paying is no guarantee that a child won’t have what you call a ‘horrible experience’. 93% of children go to state schools and many of them have really positive experiences and they make up the vast majority of students at university. You paint a picture I just don’t recognise from work or my own family (I had an awful time at my elite boarding school).
It is so much more nuanced than state = bullied and bad experience and fee paying = no bullying and dreamy experience. Did you read the testimonies of the girls and boys who were subject to sexual harassment and the children who were subject to racial harassment? Yes it happens everywhere but pretending there isn’t as much bullying at fee paying schools is not painting the true picture.

I agree there’s plenty of great state schools out there (I attended one of them) but sadly there are also many state schools that are not well funded, do not have good school grounds or facilities, or tend to have the disruptive children that llady referred to. I’ve spent many years glossing over these issues at some state schools because I really wanted to believe better.

Of course not saying private schools can’t also have issues and it’s not really a case of pack them off to a paid-for school and then sorted. But where I think paying does help is that if your kid is being bullied you can make a fuss and, as a paying customer, expect to be heard. You just don’t have the same clout if it’s a state school and they shrug their shoulders and say they’ve done all they can. It’s sad and not necessarily the school’s fault since lack of funding and overwork can mean they are just too stretched. It’a a sad state of affairs and that’s the context in which I have to make my decision.

@Bulblasagnes
Did you not read how hard those girls and their parents found it to make their voices heard? How their complaints were dealt with. Believe me that fee paying schools act as businesses as well as schools. If someone has three children at a School, they are a great customer. If someone pays donations towards school infrastructure projects, they are a great customer. If you are complaining about one of their children, you are potentially putting fees at risk. How do you think the current top crop of Tories learnt their behaviours? Not all fee paying schools operate like this, some do. My niece was managed out of her fee paying schools as a group of parents complained about her (turns out she had Aspergers. School had assigned the dinner lady to sit with her in lessons as she was tricky in class, that was as far as their understanding or management of situation went. )

@Aboutnow fair points, I need to read up a bit more on this. Just to note the managing out also happens at top state schools too - I know it did at mine. But you'd expect a private school to have the resources and expertise to deal better prevent difficult behaviour and spot special needs.

A slightly different perspective for you OP. I work in a state school (incidentally my kids are in private secondary, so I know both sectors). The putative social benefit of having MC children in state schools does exist, but it is very much a double-edged sword. My school is in a very affluent area and we have many parents who could have chosen private but opted for state instead. Now, in some ways that brings benefits. Lots of stereotypes here, but their children tend to be higher achieving, and lacking in the more severe social and support needs. So they do push us higher up the league tables, and they have plenty of disposable money to chuck at the fundraisers. But oh my god are they demanding - and their desire to 'raise standards' is generally confined to achieving the kinds of things that will benefit their own children and justify their decision not to use prep schools. So - the school is actually going a really good job in providing a very good education for a diverse cohort of students - when it's left to get on with it. What our SLT really need is the funding and headspace to properly support the kids who don't have any English, who have shockingly abusive home situations, or have severe SEN needs, while also stretching the most able pupils and generally making sure that school is an enriching place to be on a tight budget as far as is humanly possible. What they don't need is constant complaints about the lack of individual music tuition for Grade 7 violinists, or the lack of professional coaching for the school football team (plus the fact that their child isn't chosen every match because of "inclusion"), or about the fact that their child has to share a classroom with a Disruptive Influence or a child who said 'fuck' in the playground, or the fact that their child's reading record hasn't been updated for 3 whole days, or the fact that the PTA really ought to have an annual ball. These are not parents trying to altruistically raise the standard of education for everyone. They are trying to replicate a prep school as far as possible on state funding, often in ways which will only benefit their own child. Plus, they quite often then throw their toys out of the pram around Year 3, withdraw their children for private education, and leave us with a 5 grand funding gap which we can't necessarily fill.

I'm not saying that all MC state parents are like this - but plenty are. And of course, fee paying parents are just as demanding if not more so - but the point is that they actually are paying customers. Sorry, I know this is a bit of a rant, but I just wanted to suggest that it's not always 100% a good thing for parents to choose state over private.

Oh dear, sounds like a pain. DS is currently in a state primary and I’m happy to report that I and other middle class-ish parents have been happy to let them get on with it! Clearly we’re not a sufficiently aspirational parent population

@starhatmater
Very true. And also very true in fee paying schools. My friend is a deputy at a very famous prep and the stories he tells me about what parents complain about are the hilarious topic of many dinner parties! And the head of my nephew's school started off speech day with the lines - now infamous in certain circles - "What we want you to do is trust us with your children - and stop emailing us after you have had a bottle of chablis." A very refreshing speech day, some parents thought it was hilarious, some were affronted.
Middle Class parents are the same wherever their children go to school, but when they are putting down 15k a year they REALLY let their feelings rip if things aren't going their way.

Yes, but arguably @Aboutnow the difference is that they're entitled to be like that - that's what they're paying for.

And OP, while I'm not saying that you remotely fit my stereotype, you do say above that 'sadly' many schools have disruptive children and that in state schools one of the problems is that parents don't have enough 'clout' if their child is being bullied. But the fact is, of course state schools are going to have disruptive children - because they have all children. Often when a parent complains that their child is being subjected to disruptive behaviour, their assumption is that this means that the situation is being badly handled by the school. Actually, it is very often being well handled, within the constraints that schools face. There are barely any alternative provision places, and waiting lists are months if not years long. Permanent exclusion is very difficult, and usually only means that the child will be shunted into a different school, just moving the problem around. In fact, the school might be managing the situation as well as it can possibly be managed, and the child causing problems might actually be making fantastic progress - but there is no magic wand to ensure that disruptive and violent behaviour never happens. The school has equal responsibility to every student - the disruptor and the disruptee. Of course, a parent has a right to expect the school to manage these types of situation as well as it possibly can - but often it is already doing that. If parents want to increase their 'clout' in demanding that such issues are dealt with differently, or that disruptive behaviour is effectively eradicated, then that's something they will need to pay for. I have seen similar situations time and time and time again - a parent complaining that their child is being bullied, when really that is not what's going on. What's happening is that there are a couple of children in the class who cause disruption and sometimes aggression in a pretty widespread way, not just 'bullying' another individual child. And the parent doing the complaining is effectively not going to be satisfied unless the child in question is either removed from the school/class or magically prevented from causing any further disruption. Neither of these things is possible.

Havn't read the full thread yet but I will... I read the first page & I am reminded of many friends of mine when before they had kids always said "state all the way for ours"... "we have numerous red brick degrees between us, our kids will thrive anywhere"... So anti private education...
Roll on the births of their protegees & suddenly the state kids appear to be amazing for other peoples kids but not their own.... All but one couple sent their kids to private.

@starhatmater all good points and I agree that there are disruptive pupils out there who often have troubled backgrounds through no fault of their own and they have every right to be in the schools. I suppose what I was thinking of was a more generalised disruptive atmosphere which is not being managed by the school and preventing other children from getting on with learning. And also bullying which is an issue in many schools (both state and private). I think if it really is bullying that is targeting a specific child, if I were the parent of that child I would find it intolerable if the situation wasn't resolved. That's really my cut off point for what I would accept, no matter what the reasons behind it (in terms of background or deprivation of the bullying child).

@Cheeryblossom1 in my defence I was staunchly state all the way way beyond the birth of my PFB However I am 100% eating humble pie right now. Also I don't agree that state schools are fine for everyone's kids but my own. I'm sad that any child has no option but to attend a school that has no grounds for them to play in. I think it's a complete tragedy but it's something I'm powerless to do anything about. I've voted consistently for parties that would have invested more in our schooling and have been more than willing to pay the extra taxes to enable that. I have the option to pay for my kids to enjoy a better school experience but that doesn't mean I don't also wish that for the other children. It's just not something I can personally enable.

To step away from the disruptive pupils as a push factor, I think the pull factor towards a private school can be very strong, but you need to make sure that the school really is worth it. If you're working full time, then the convenience factor around enrichment activities can be very significant - not only because the extra curricular activities are so much easier to manage, but because there's so much built into the curriculum itself. We chose private secondary, and the kids really do have a pretty wonderful school experience every day - they fundamentally love school, and mostly love their lessons and teachers, and do lots and lots of really brilliant stuff both inside and outside the classroom. It is an absolute joy to see them get so much out of it. But of course, I can't actually know how much that would also have been true at the state alternative.

Yes, the extra curricular is a significant factor for me. I work full time and tend to have a lot of meetings in late afternoon so running kids around to activities during the week is just not possible and I don’t really want to be rushing around all weekend either! DH similar.

It does make a big difference. DS does 5-6 hours of timetabled sport a week (plus music and drama), then out of lessons he plays another hour of sport, sings in a choir, plays in two instrumental ensembles and is doing a play. That's not all after school - the school day is an hour or so longer than the average (plus Saturday mornings), so there's lots on at lunchtime. It means DH and I get our work/non-work 'stuff' done as much as possible on a Sat morning, then the rest of the weekend can just be family chilling out time. It suits us really well. There's also always the option of the kids staying after school to get some homework done if I occasionally need to work a bit late.

I have 2 DC at state comprehensive - one is very happy, doing well academically, participated in DofE, sport etc. The other I would move to private in a heart-beat - no problems socially but totally unmotivated academically, there's little accountability for poor performance, we have a daily battle over homework (or it just doesn't get done on days we're working) plus he's a keen sportsman but doesn't engage in any school sport as it's not competitive enough apparently!
He would no doubt thrive in small classes, a stricter environment and hugely benefit from things like after school prep, competitive sport and generally more personal attention.

If I had the amount of spare cash that you’re talking about then I’d personally go for private if I felt it would benefit my DC. Sorry if I’ve missed it but how old is your DS? Could he have a say in it?

I would decide this based on if the private school in your area is better than the state.

For the people saying leave the place to someone who really need it. We are entitled to use the state school because that is what taxes are for. Stop making people feel guilty. Do you feel guilty about people the people who pay high income taxes? I do not think so but these people get very little in return and private schools are very expensive.