Would most people choose private education if they could afford it

[mids2019]

My children go to reasonable state schools but especially from my older daughter I keep hearing about a succession of cover teachers and general malaise in the school system (governments fault not the schools)

That for me asking the question would most people choose private education if affordable in their heart of hearts or are there egalitarian parents who would still choose state on ideological grounds?

I am in two minds about this but certainly the private sector locally is attracting quite a few.

I would fully agree with this but the teachers in private schools stand a fighting chance because they won’t have the same violence and disruptive behaviour in their classrooms (I’d hope)! I would imagine if this sort of thing regularly happened in a private school classroom the child would be asked to leave or they would have the available staff to manage this. In every state school I have worked in the job has been completely impossible to do due to literally not even being able to get to the end of a sentence without a disruption. I was regularly black and blue from being assaulted (primary) and it’s the same in every school my friend’s have worked in locally too. There was something on the radio about it the other day saying about the thousands in compensation that has now been paid out to teacher’s in Scotland’s classrooms due to the injuries they have experienced from violent behaviour. It’s horrific!

As much as I dread my child being in the middle of all of that when he starts school, I don’t think I’d be overly keen on him going to private school (more so at secondary) as there can be more problems with drugs etc so I’m not sure there is a right answer 🤦🏻‍♀️

Baileysx
I don't think people fully appreciate the varied levels of problems, or the impact of small problems over time.

One of the phrases I came to hate was "low level disruption". Nothing serious enough to cause a physical risk to anyone's safety, but actually really damaging to pupil progress.

Imagine a pupil in a good school, no major issues with behaviour, the students aren't at risk, and it's overall a nice enough environment. The pupil has 5 lessons a day. In a lesson, the first 5 minutes are spent getting into the classroom and resources out. Then the second 5 minutes the teacher can't get straight into the starter or the starter is interrupted because 3 students haven't got their pens, or have lost their book. Then the teacher reviews the starter, but instead of everyone listening, the feedback is fragmented by the teacher stopping to remind some students to listen to the answers. Then the teaching input starts, but a couple of students aren't paying attention or are whispering so the learning stops. Some warnings might be given here. Then the teacher explains the task and different students are talking so instructions have to be given again. 10 minutes into the activity, most of the class are getting on, but the students who weren't listening haven't done much and now argue that they don't know what they're doing. Obviously they've not asked for help or clarification, they're just talking. Now the teacher is recapping with them at the expense of supporting other students or stretching the more able. When it comes to review the answers, more time is lost waiting for pupils to listen, show respect to each other.

Repeat for an hour.

Some students will have warnings recorded on the behaviour system, but fly just low enough to avoid detentions or being removed.

Then do that 5 hours a day.

That is a LOT of lost learning time.
It's also a LOT of time a teacher is focusing on behaviour rather than SEN support, or helping learning, or stretching bright children.

When you think how much learning can be done without those disruptions, it adds up. One year I did the maths with one tricky class. It changed their whole outlook and classroom culture.

@Baileysx @LolaSmiles
I agree with this and think the impact on pupils of being in this environment can be overlooked as well.

I remember feeling so stressed at the state school I went to - almost every interaction between staff and students was negative; pupils swore at teachers, the noise level was high all of the time; teachers could rarely finish a sentence and often shouted; you were always on edge about the next violent episode etc.; there were a lot of inappropriate sexual comments between pupils which weren’t dealt with. It was a very difficult environment to spend time in, let alone work. We were supposed to spend 5 minutes reading at the beginning of English but this was frequently half the lesson due to the teacher dealing with disruption. We spent a whole term in music doing a poster which said “music” - that’s how long it took everyone to do it. We never played an instrument because we weren’t trusted with them. This was clearly a school with very poor behaviour management but by all accounts many schools still have similar issues.

By contrast there were virtually no obvious behavioural issues in the private girls’ school I went to. There was probably 4x time actually spent teaching. Almost every interaction between pupils and teachers was positive. We were trusted to a much greater extent e.g could use classrooms and facilities without teacher present, could leave for toilet break etc. without question etc. It made a huge difference to my mental health.

I’ve no doubt state teachers are on average just as good as private school teachers and may be better at behaviour management as they have more experience but the environment can be completely different which in turn affects the teaching.

@SallyWD

Lots of private schools are more economically, socially, religiously and ethnically diverse than state schools.

All private schools have to have some bursary pupils, then there are the ones with poor parents whose grandparents pay or ones who live in small flats in bad areas/have no cars/no holidays etc as parents put everything into paying for education.

Compare that to state schools at both ends of the spectrum: there are schools where only million pound homes are in their catchment! Or ones in housing estates where everyone is from the one socially deprived neighbourhood.

I've never seen an all white private school in the uk but lots of state schools are all white.

Circe7
The impact of environments is something I think is easily overlooked, especially when people focus on extremes rather than the very broad middle ground.

Some situations are unsafe and where almost no learning happens. Some situations are nice enough but the drip drip of low level disruption affects the learning over time, think marginal losses Vs marginal gains. Some situations a child might be surviving and getting through the day in a school many would say is nice, but for that child they hold it together to get through the day but their mental health is affected and/or all their feelings come out at home. Other situations the academics provide a positive experience but because of how pastoral issues are handled, some children aren't thriving.
Another student might be bright but because the school teaches predominantly to the middle, they're on track to get 6s/7s instead of 8/9s.

Another child might be able to manage having a string of supply teachers because they're able, they have educated parents who can help and the parents are able and willing to get a tutor. Another child in the same school might not manage with the inconsistency and the last thing that child needs is more tutoring and education out of school, they just need it right within the day.

Another child might simply find a large school overwhelming or find the buildings themselves too big, too echoey, too chaotic whereas another child in the same school finds the exact same environment as stimulating and engaging and exciting.

The accumulation of all these experiences and how different children respond to different environments and situations means that parents are going going to be making the decisions they think are best for their children in their circumstances, which isn't unreasonable.

The people who are very black and white often seem to preface with "but obviously I understand that sometimes children have SEN", but what they selectively overlook is that there's a huge range of children and experiences and who are they do decide what is and isn't a good enough reason for a parent to look after their children's wellbeing?

Yes, I've no doubt what you're saying is correct, in some places. It's just that my own experience of state schools is that they're very diverse in terms of class and ethnicity. This applies to the state school I went to and the state schools my children go to. We live in a big city and there are kids from all backgrounds: rich, poor and inbetween and apparently (according to my daughter's school) children/parents from over 100 different countries. I love this.
I do have friends that went to private schools on burseries/scholarships and they were horribly bullied for being poorer. However, I'm not implying that bullying is worse at private schools. I know it's a big problem at state schools, at all schools.

There are good and bad schools in both sectors. The best state schools rival the best independent schools. It’s really about what you want out of a school if you can afford it. We started our DC off privately and it was a waste of money. It would be easy to say it was the wrong school for him, but we didn’t see that coming nor could we have done. There are as many things to dislike about private schools as there are about state schools - they are just different things. And then there is ideology, which kinda makes me think we would all choose a state school if we all lived in good catchment and had no reason to feel tempted to try for better schooling by paying for it.

@LolaSmiles

I think there is teaching to the middle as you say and for a lot of state schools it will need external input to get the 8s or 9s out of a lot pupils. I would hope this features in the contextualisation policies of universities.

I can understand a lot of schools don't have the bandwidth to cope with pupils at extends of the academic spectrum successfully.

Worth bearing in mind that lots of the private schools are also very over subscribed, and often don't have many, if any, spaces come up outside the main entry points (3+ 4+ 11+ etc) and will have waiting lists for those in year spaces too.

So many not be as simple of try the state first and if that doesn't work out resort to private.

mids2019
Teaching to the middle does happen, but does the intention of teaching to the top but because of other issues the higher attaining don't get the amount of teacher time that's ideal.
Some schools I've worked in have been excellent at getting 8/9s for bright children, others less so.

The schools I've worked in where more children get high grades are the ones with a catchment where the rent is high, house prices are high, many parents fund a range of enrichment activities, intervention and revision sessions are well attended and if required parents have private tutors.

I've got friends who have children in KS1/lower KS2 who are already talking about moving by Year 5 to be in the catchment for this school.

Yes, I would in a heartbeat send my DTs to private school if I had the money. Not necessarily for the education, but for the pastoral support, smaller classes and finding the right fit for them to support them so they can blossom.

Sadly, I can’t afford it so they’re stuck in a state school that I’m growing increasingly worried about.

@LolaSmiles

I can understand.this. I guess from a philosophical perspective is it much different sending your child to a private school or paying 500K plus to be in catchment of a good school. I see it in my own town with people moving to certain suburbs simply because there is one half decent school (in terms of results) around here. I did it and I guess a lot of other parents do. Ironically there is expensive new build locally which means the good comps is having to move its catchment to take on the build and is reducing the number of cheaper properties in catrchment.t

it's not quite comprehensive.

That's what I always struggled with.

I know of areas where the Pupil Premium rates vary from single figures to over 50%.That doesn't account for the fact that in some areas there were lots of families who needed support and living in poverty who weren't eligible for FSM. Some areas are more affected by more than a decade of austerity than others and some schools are plugging more gaps in services than others.

Unsurprisingly parents with more financial resources can use them in a way that support their children's education, either by buying houses in the best areas (or at the very least being able to avoid living in catchment of other schools), being able to fund extracurricular activities or educationally enriching activities as a family, being able to access private SEN and EdPsyc assessments, being able to access private mental health support rather than wait 3 years to be told CAMHS won't see them, affording private tutors if required or knowing people who are able to offer support to their DC, being able to transport their DC home from after school revision classes and intervention.

The idea that private is buying a leg up and state isn't is an oversimplification.

@ActuallyChristmas your last paragraph. this is so true. In N Ireland there are 67 grammar schools. The independent system doesn’t exist (save for some slightly complicated exceptions). Kids sit the 11+ and go to a grammar if they pass. If the state system was excellent no one would need to consider the independent sector.
but it isn’t, and I think there are very few people who have surplus cash who don’t send their kids independently.

Sadly, the pastoral support was rubbish at the private school our DC attended Reception-Yr4 and the only children who blossomed were sporty. This wasn't some failing old fashioned or poor newcomer school. A danger of the traditional prep school is that it’s all about sport and prancing about in a tie 4 years before you should need to be able to tie one. The other main thing about a prep school is that the main academic thing it has to do is to get kids ready to pass entrance exams to the senior schools so they often set their own curriculum.

What this can add up to is a waste of money. We researched in advance, but it’s hard to ask the right questions. Esp when one can only speculate what your child will be like in the future. It’s a bit easier at secondary level, you have more idea what they like and what they need.

The most shocking thing to me was that our DC was much happier with 29 other kids to bounce off and soon found the pals in class that he’d not in a class of 16.

No. And I could afford it if I really put my mind to it, and sacrifice on other things that we currently enjoy.
I was brought up in a fairly poor country in Europe, and went to a state school. I guess most people were poor, so it made no real difference to your chances later in life. I had a very good education, and always top grades. My family life was challenging, so this is not because of family support either. I worked hard, as you should at school, as that was instilled in me from the start. Work hard, and you get things, there is no other way.
I now live in the UK and have a very well paid job. Many of my colleagues have been to private schools, but are paid less. What they do have is an attitude of "I've been to private school, I'm entitled to get better things". No, you're not. Hard work is the only thing that gets results. So no, I would absouktely not pay for my child to grow up in a privileged bubble, expecting things. In a first World country like UK, I expect the education system to be good for the amount of tax I pay. (Sorry, but not sorry!!) Our school is great, no complaints (it is not a city school, we live in a town l, so maybe we are lucky) my kid works hard, and is doing very well at school.
I'll save the school fees for her university or a professional degree, as that is where the actual difference in her future prospects will be. I would like to pay for her university so she can start her adult life debt free and with the best education she can have.

You'd get the same effect if there was a law that required all MP's and all senior civil servants to only use state services : state schools for their children, and NHS healthcare only. There would suddenly be the most wonderful focus in improving state schools and the NHS.

Or you could get even more convoluted admissions criteria for schools and unequal provision due to postcode lotteries. The sharp-elbowed middle classes are the ones best placed to make sure that they benefit from the existing inequalities the state provision. I'd guess MP's and senior civil servants would be in even better positions to take advantage of them, e.g., Tony Blair sending his sons to the Brompton Oratory, or David Cameron and Michael Gove sending their daughters to the Grey Coat Hospital.

Where on earth did you get that figure from?
State spending per pupil is now around £7,690 for 5-16 year olds. So you're out by a factor of 5.
And only about 5% of government spending goes on education.
So of the 25,000 you and your DH pay in tax: around £1200 gets spent on education, which is enough to fund one-sixth of a state school place.
If you think your tax is paying for 10 state school places you are completely delusional.

A lot of the people I know who choose state over private on ideological grounds rather than financial are privileged enough for their dc to benefit from their networks and connections anyway. We live in an area with lots of actors and musicians and media types , yes their children go to the local school but they have internships with big newspapers, godparents who facilitate work experience in the arts and parents who can financially support any endeavour however low paid etc There’s no doubt that private education is privileged but it’s no the be all and end all , we have no connections with anyone so my dc need all the help I can give them .

Personally the only people whose views I value on this are people who can afford it and choose not to. Which is a tiny number of people (as school fees are so high it’s only an option for a small minority).

For everyone else it’s the easiest thing in the world to do a bit of virtue signalling and claim you would never do it regardless of how much money they had but how do you know? If your child was being badly bullied for being “a rich kid” (happened to the “rich kids” at my school a lot) and you had plenty of money are you really saying even then you would never consider it?

I think it depends on how good your local state schools are.

A friend's ds is very bright but severely dyslexic and he was sinking educationally in a huge primary class and not enough TA time.

He started to thrive as soon as he was at a private school which gave far more tailored support.

I think it depends on resources and whether a child can thrive in a setting or not.

We moved to an area with very good state schools. I think this is the same ethically as buying a private education. Just as questionable but I was determined my kids went to good schools having been to sone rubbish schools as a child.

Never!

I'm in teaching and there is a common rumour going round that the worst teachers teach in private. I've worked in very tough schools and my teaching has definitely benefitting from more training in those than the good schools. Tougher kids need more skilled staff.

I could and I didn't.