Private Vs State school

[Ilikepinacoladass]

I know this is a controversial subject. But genuinely trying to decide if private is worth it.

I see loads of comments saying things like I didn't send mine to private because I went to a comp and was at the same uni as loads of privately educated people and got same results etc.

But surely the GCSE / A-level results speak for themselves? Lots from the comps won't have even made it to uni whereas maybe they would have if they'd gone to a private school?

A-level results from 2023
56.5% got A/A* - local private school
39% got A/A* - local grammar school
20% got A/A* - local state school

I don't want to waste money, but I do want the best for my child (as we all do!) and trying to decide if having more local friends / a free education / short walk to school etc (state school) would be worth the potential loss in opportunities a private school would offer.

If w child wants to work they will do well anywhere.

My dd and her friend were at state primary together. They were about the same level.

Dd was at state and friend at private. Dd at state did much better at gcse and a level than her friend.

Private schools vary from excellent to dire. A good private school that suits your child and you can comfortably afford is great, but struggling to afford a mediocre school is probably not as wise as enrichment on top of a state school (eg music lessons, educational trips as a family)

TheaBrandt · Today 10:09

Firms are now falling over themselves to do away with the old boy network thing. In Dh firm it’s strictly forbidden blind cvs etc.

That sounds much fairer. However presumably there are other ways of avoiding privately educated applicants - if they get to the interview stage - which is accents.
Also, when you say ‘blind’ cvs, is that just schools or universities too?

@twistyizzy you are coming across a tad aggressive, and im not sure if that’s because you want to make sure you are convincing yourself that you are getting value, but your post is not giving a generalisable point of view.

It very much depends on the school. Not all states are the same and not all privates are the same. It is unhelpful to focus on extreme scenarios. Equal to what you said about state teachers posting on mn about being tired, there are many who do not post because they are coping extremely well. There are also private teachers who might not be coping well.

That’s not what you were saying hopefully, but it sounded like you think, based on these posts, all states are so bad that teachers spend all their time on "crowd control”. That itself is the same caricaturisation as all privates being full of high IQ kids.

I know many teachers who moved from private to state, who prefer it because they love the environment, and ethos of their schools.

Depends on the child. My DC is ND and at a well-performing private school as she needs small classes without a disruptive element. She also gets lots of additional support which maybe we could get outside of school if she were at a state school but I would struggle to have her at school all day and then finding the time for tutoring etc in the evenings.

The extra-curricular activities are also fantastic - she is into lots of sports and able to play competitively at the school - it means a few longer days but I like that it is done at the school. That was also a factor for me as I didn't want her to be getting home from school and being ferried around in the evening trying to fit the sports in.

My other DC, who is very academically capable, will also go to the school as it would be unfair otherwise. Although he could in theory do well in state school (and maybe the same results - who knows) I am not convinced he would have the same opportunities and experience as he will do at the private school.

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202022%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations.pdf

Some very interesting points coming out of the most recent PISA study in a post pandemic era. It touches again on aspects like class size does not matter too much, neither does funding beyond a certain point, whereas parental involvement does. Luckily, on pupil equity UK has not done too badly. So educationally we are not as “unfair” as some might expect, at least not compared with many other countries. Nor are we the only ones in Europe to struggle with shortages of Education Staff. It also touches on pupil well being and how much screen time is good etc.

At the end of the day, there is no generalising. If you have a conscientious NT child that you can support at home and a fairly decent local school there is probably not much added value in paying up for private school. Especially if you are highly educated yourself and talk to them regularly and engage them extracurricularly and can offer experiences like travel, museums, theatre type stuff anyway. If you are really rich and want them to have a 5 star experience then go for it. If there is any particular reason like poor mental health, extra support, you don’t have time to support them etc these are all valid reasons to choose private school. Just be careful that they will deliver what they promise.

“That sounds much fairer. However presumably there are other ways of avoiding privately educated applicants - if they get to the interview stage - which is accents.
Also, when you say ‘blind’ cvs, is that just schools or universities too?”

For some law firms, it is universities too. We do not get to see what school or what uni the applicants went to. We are not allowed to judge on accent obviously, either way, nor on sex, gender, race, religion, race either. We are not allowed to positively nor negatively discriminate. Is that not obvious?

There is no right answer.
Depends on

• your local schools, state and private
• your child’s strengths, weaknesses and personality
• what you value (academics, happiness, sport, extracurricular, more money for other stuff)

As a single parent I do like the idea that most things will be covered at school so less need for tutoring / sports clubs being ferried too / swimming lessons done at school/ trips etc.

Not aggressive no and I definitely don't need convincing. I have repeatedly said that it all depends on the quality of state schools around you. If you have good (not Ofsted good, but actually well run and nurturing state schools) then there will probably be no logical reason to go private. Many areas however do not have good state schools.
Of course there are good and bad in each sector. There are several active posts at the moment which have state school teachers saying that all they do is manage behaviour in their lessons. You can't get away from the fact that there is a teacher recruitment and retention crisis in state schools at present.
That's all I'm saying plus the fact that I disagree with the oft quoted premise that a clever child will do well in any setting.

@RedPanda2022 exactly

From a personal experience, and this may be different from school to school, also perhaps different between primaries and secondaries, the sports and extracurricular activities in private schools are great.

That said, we found specialist after-school clubs significantly better. For example, swimming, great at my DD school, they have their own swimming pool, what's not to like. After 2 years though, we found it totally lagging behind a local successful swim club. I mean, it's like on a different planet.

Same goes for other sports, drama, etc. If they are into it purely to kill time or 100% fun activity, compete against other schools a bit, it's fine. But if they are talented and want to take it a bit more seriously, you may find the private school provision inadequate, unless they really specialise in that sort of subject.

We are not allowed to positively nor negatively discriminate. Is that not obvious?

Yes it’s obvious that you can’t say you’ve turned someone down because of their accent but it could be held against them without it being said. There are loads of posts on mn about how the poster hates posh people and I’m sure it works the other way round too.
Re universities, presumably the degree can be stated?
Do the applicants do written tests or is it decided via interview?

Fair point! Happy to do a bit of ferrying for specific activities. I didn't do many clubs / activities as a child though so any better than none or not many I think. Not necessarily looking for professional level football / drama training etc, but if DC did show a particular aptitude for something then maybe outside club training might be necessary

@Barbadossunset Do the applicants do written tests or is it decided via interview?

Various written and psychometric tests and sometimes several interviews, usually with at least 2 interviewers, each from different backgrounds. Plus most have done some form of work experience too.
If you are looking for highly resilient, creative individuals who work incredibly hard with others from all sorts of backgrounds and you have to invest highly in each of them, then you need to make sure that you don’t end up with just one type of person from a particular background. So you don’t want 40 per cent cohort from Oxbridge making others feel left out and you actively want an international & diverse feel and you want individuals who elevate themselves from their own background, whether it was privileged or not. However, you are not going to discriminate against a white prep school boy who went to Eton and Oxford - only if he is going to throw his privilege around and make others feel lesser (because that would harm your business) or if he is not going to pull his weight and stay until midnight or cancel his plans with his friends, because he is not that way inclined. So if he thinks he deserves to go shooting at the weekend rather than stay late and work, then he is not going to get recruited. So privilege is only going to work against you if you are lacking in commitment, drive and resilience as a result of your privilege.

However, you are not going to discriminate against a white prep school boy who went to Eton and Oxford - only if he is going to throw his privilege around and make others feel lesser (because that would harm your business) or if he is not going to pull his weight and stay until midnight or cancel his plans with his friends, because he is not that way inclined. So if he thinks he deserves to go shooting at the weekend rather than stay late and work, then he is not going to get recruited.

No, of course not. However, how do you discover that the applicants might do that before they’ve started work? I’m genuinely interested that there are written and psychometric tests which can flag this sort of behaviour (presumably the same applies if the applicant wants to go to a football match or any other hobby rather than stay late and work).

I think with all positives/negatives you can come up with, it's worth taking it one step further and scrutinise if possible. Don't fall at the first hurdle and see only what's on the surface, especially with private schools.

Does the school have great results? Great. Now, how come? What is it that they do that others don't/can't to make that happen? And do their results correlate with further education success? Take Oxbridge for example, everyone who applies there already has stellar A level results. No point applying otherwise. So their selection is more based on "other" aspects. Does the school also produce confident enthusiastic well rounded individuals that find it easy to learn and are really eager to learn more?

Do they have loads of sports? Awesome. But is it any good? Is it taught by a specialist external teacher (sometimes it is) or just a random PE teacher?

Is the school nearby? Good, Google says roughly 10 minutes on a bus or in a car. But is the traffic a total nightmare in the morning, buses overfilled with children or children stuck at unsheltered bus stop in the rain?

Do they have great school lunches? All teachers rave about how good it is? How about the children though? Are they going to end up eating the baked potato fallback every day, because they can't stand the quinoa and carrots pasta and sorrento lemons and white truffle cake (or something like that that's on the menu every day)? No matter how well and expensive meal it was to produce, perhaps they'd just rather have a normal burger or mac & cheese every now and then.

Sometimes that's easier said than done. I know.

Now I know that this may sound as I'm against private schools, I'm not. We were very very happy with our local independent primary. It worked perfectly for us, couldn't have hoped for a better outcome. But no school is perfect and private schools especially can be really good at selling themselves. To survive, they have to. A few years down the road when you start scratching below the surface, you realise a thing or two though. So, if you're going to pay significant amounts of money, make sure you're not going to get shortchanged.

It depends how you measure ‘value’?
DC2 is middling. Does not think independently. Imo private will bring out the best in DC2. In. a state school DC2 will fall into the middle cohort of being left to muddle along as long as they aren’t disruptive. A smaller classroom and more teacher interaction will help immensely. The teachers take the struggling kids during lunch to go over work, all of this will help DC2. This isn’t offered in state schools near us. We already do a number of extra curricular activities and these are offered in private school too although I expect to keep some external too. What I really hope most of all is that DC’s confidence will increase. I’m absolutely not expecting high results but a well rounded, confident adult will hopefully emerge from a school where people are coaxed to being out their best.

Many in private do sport in school AND out of school. The added extra sport in school benefits the dc as an extra practice. The ones that do both are the ones doing sport more competitively. My dd was in state for primary so she did sports out of school, but now that she is doing sports in school and out of school, we see she is progressing more in sport.

I noticed this with all the dc in the state schools in our area, they just do not get enough practice in the sport to be competitive (unless they do it a few times a week outside). Most do it just once a week (at least the ones I know). But the private school dc do it in school and outside, so become stronger in the sport. Of course there are ways around this if you go to state, but sending your dc to more sport practice weekly.

You are not going to cut it in a top investment bank or top law firm if you think you are definitely going to make your outside 6pm Yoga class every Wednesday. That is a given. However, many of the firms do have on site gyms and classes and encourage you to balance when you can. It is more that your absolute commitment, especially when you are training, has to be towards your work not a set hobby. Although there are exceptions and you may have months when you have more time. I assume it is the same for doctors given shift patterns.
If you are going to show up at interview with strong socialist principles and demand your work life balance, then it is just not going to be a good fit. No matter what a genius you may be and if you got a top first in Maths at X university. So you are going to have to be a bit of a hardworking conformist as well as a creative thinker, not easy to find. As far as I know, the psychometric and aptitude tests do work surprisingly well. The interview is there to flush out any weak points further. Training these kids up costs a lot of time and effort and you want to get it right. Those that don’t cut it commitment wise during training are just not offered permanent jobs later on.
Nobody cares if you grew up on a council estate or in a Surrey Manor House, as long as you are the right fit and have what it takes and are willing to commit and most importantly, work well with others and bring out the best in them too (and there is help/support for neurodivergence too because that is in the business’ best interest).
Obviously top unis and top selective private schools demanding lots off their students are going to be a good training ground for those kinds of demands, but we are not allowed to see that anymore. I guess it is how rich people train their otherwise privileged children to have to work hard so they are prepared later on. Poor kids work hard just by surviving and getting good grades and making it to uni in the first place and having a job whilst there as well. What we do not want is lazy kids lacking in drive who gamed the system and demand too much of a work life balance and a high salary without a full commitment - because the intense training has to take place through lots of committed hours. You are not going to get anything for free is the point. It is really hard work and you have to be prepared to work incredibly hard, regardless of your background. And you have to be really clever and efficient and produce work quickly and accurately and get on with others.

Competitive sport is interesting because you are instilling resilience, competition as well as long term health - including, hopefully, mental health. Pretty much every properly successful person I know does eats well and exercises too. You just cannot perform optimally in a high pressured environment without doing that - aka looking after your immunity, physical and mental health. It is our main job as parents to do that for our own kids - look after their physical and mental health - but in a society where many are barely able to look after themselves optimally, it is clearly not happening for all children, far from it. And when teachers are barely coping themselves how can they then be expected to extend this kind of care to all the kids they teach as well.

@@twistyizzy thanks, it seems we agree then.

@twdad "the sports and extracurricular activities in private schools are great."

Of course they are. That is why you are paying for!!!

We sent DD to a highly selective independent (one of those 'hothouses'). And it wasn't because she was a 'middling' who needed more nurturing environment to succeed, nor because we don't have time/will to engage with her. We sent her there because giving her the best available education is the highest on our list of priorities - it does not compensate for the lack of our engagement, it complements our engagement with her. The local independent is leaps and bounds ahead of local state schools.

We made the decision that we'd rather invest in her education than give her the deposit money for her first property (everyone has different priorities). I am fairly confident she'd do great at any school, but her elementary/high school education means much more to us than just a ticket to a good university. And I say that as a former Russell group uni academic who 'sold her soul' and went into finance.

It's not black and white. I hate this private vs state on Mumsnet.
It's depends on your local state offering
It depends on your child
And it depends on your local private schools

I went to state, my husband went to state, I grew up in an affluent area so generally the state school was 'ok'. My husband's in a poor area but he has still done very well. Although very few went on to further education.

My daughter went to state but now goes to private. That's because our state options weren't suitable for her. She gets much more support at private (SEN), smaller classes, more clubs and wider range of learning (languages for instance). Our state non grammer options are pretty awful with bullying and poor results.
If the state was a better fit she would be going there.
As a side note I can't get over parents paying private schools when bullying is rife etc. can't help feeling these are parents who went to private school and forget there is also a free option out there!