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.

No. I dislike the culture it feeds and it doesn’t sit right with me ethically. Besides our family are all of the ‘gifted and bright’ but eccentric ,nuanced and completely hopeless at sports so it’d be pointless exposing them to a pushy, academic, sporty environment. If the local state school was genuinely unsafe, I’d simply move. So long as there’s a decent standard of core subjects and they get to enjoy their arts, I don’t really care where they sit in the league tables.

I understand absolutely trying to do the best for your children and as I have I think this is really core part of human nature. I guess the question is if money allowed why wouldn't you go private if the school is good enough?

I personally feel with my daughter not being in a grammar as there are none in my catchment there is a feeling we have to push a little more in terms of academic motivation. The sad fact is there seem to be a lot of kids even in reasonably good comps that aren't motivated and you are battling peer pressure.

Nope! I went to a semi private school (Ireland though!) and the school was (and apparently still is) fully focused on getting people into the top three universities in Ireland. Nothing else. Public school gives you more realistic options (most of my friends and I did nothing anyways related to our degrees as there were no jobs there). Also there’s a lot of cliched snobbery and manipulative psychological bullying

If I had the choice of a reasonably local grammar school and a child of mine secured a place then I would not even consider private. If they didn't get into grammar and the local options were not at all good, then I would consider private for the Y7 to 11. Because in the city I live in there are diverse options for 6th firm, I'd be strongly in favour of returning to state at that stage. Reading on mumsnet of people scraping the fees together and not having other nice things like a holiday, would not be for me. If others choose private then I don't believe that the option should be removed. But please let's stop pretending that allowing a few state school children in to use sports facilities when not required by the private school justifies charitable status.

Both DH and I went to very mediocre comprehensives and were keen for our children to go to better schools than we did.

I used to think I’d pay for private if I had the money, but my children go to state primary in a very affluent area and I actually find the lack of socioeconomic diversity a bit weird and I’m not sure I like it. None of their friends’ parents seem to have “normal” jobs like the people I knew growing up, they all either seem to make megabucks in finance/law or they’re SAHMs… I’m guessing it would be even worse at a private school and that does put me off.

I'm not aware of anyone I know who was educated in a private school so it's not really anything that was on my radar. But when it comes it ethics and ideology, I think I can say I'm a pragmatist given that I've sent my eldest to religious school and attended religious services for that end. Its the best school in the area. But then again, any parent could make the same decision as me so it's not two tier.

Could you argue that children would be surrounded on average by those more willing to learn? Isn't there a theory that parents of privately schooled children maybe have a little more invested in education (on average and I don't want to unnecessarily sterotype)?

This.

I suppose I have gone private, because we home educate. I am very wary of state schools especially secondary.

But the major problems I have with schooling would be the same (if not worse) in most private schools. Uniform (and its pointless enforcement) doing the best thing for the majority not the individual. Stupid rules which are enforced unfairly. Punishment rather than help. A world of fear rather than a world of love. Etc.

I don't have money for private school, but if I did I would jump at the chance of a personalised caring educational setting.

It's not just about being surrounded by more engaged kids, it is about the classrooms being calmer places with fewer disruptive elements (on average). So teachers can teach rather than manage behaviour and with smaller class sizes have the freedom and opportunity to go off on tangents/explore topics in greater depth. They aren't constricted by the National Curriculum which therefore enables more creativity.

We could have afforded it for Dd and seriously looked at the one local private school for secondary but didn’t because of the lack of subject choice especially at gcse. There wasn’t stuff like photography and produce design…..it was all very main stream subjects. Dd even at 11yo was very creative and knew she wanted to be an architect so it wouldn’t have been the best fit for the creative stuff she wanted to do.

Would you be ok with your DC in a failing state secondary school?

I would if my child needed it. My sibling benefited a lot from the smaller classes and more pastoral care at the school they went to as they struggled but I may have been better at a local grammar (we both passed 11+ so was an option).

We've moved to be in priority catchment for one of the best grammars in the country and are keeping an eye on the reputations, and costs, of the alternative schools. I don't really agree with a two tier education but while it exists I'm not willing to sacrifice my child's education for my opinion.

No I'm a socialist and I think it degrades educational achievement across the whole of society.

Some of the real pioneers and thinkers, best actors are now being stifled and the less academically able but richer are floating into powerful positions. This is dangerous for any society.

Also as my 18 year old recently said 'mum all the private school kids I know aren't going to uni they are going to be bricklayers etc. why have their parents wasted that money?'

Why indeed?

It’s possible but it depends on the school and its demographic. It also depends on your child.
Some children will thrive in the competitive environment and others will not.
The decision is not as simple as ideology, money and local grammar options.
Look carefully at the school and carefully at your child and decide if it’s the right “fit” for the child.

We can afford it but chose a local state school. None of the private schools we looked at seemed like the right fit for my neurodivergent, sporty, gentle kid. And tbh I really do believe in supporting state education (but have to confess that if I'd thought private would suit DC better I probably would have let my principles go...)

No.

Our state schools, though in no way leafy, were good. What they need from secondary is good enough results in GCSE and A levels to progress to the next step. They all take the same exams, based on the same curriculum. With motivation and enough brains, my Dc did really well, are making excellent progress in good Unis to good careers that interest them.

We are also luck enough to live in London and they had access to excellent artist led music projects that challenged and extended their musical interests. Museums all the time, loads of educational and broader cultural stuff.

And they developed great social skills, understanding and street awareness.

Set up for life.

@decionsdecisions62 because education isn't all about outcomes/results, it is about the journey and experience. I'm not paying for X amount of 7-9s. I'm paying for a rounded education free of the NC with more opportunities to learn music, drama, sports and languages.

@twistyizzy good for you. Whatever it is you want it still degrades the wider opportunities and chances for society and study after study has demonstrated this.

I have various left leaning friends in London children, many of whom could afford private schooling for secondary. What I’ve found is often one of the Following

• as they get older their ideals soften - I’m here
• Spending £££ to get a house with better state schools (this is apparently fine whereas spending same money on a school directly is not)
• they move to and tutor hard for the limited grammar options to attempt to side step some of the social issues in schools
• ”oh of course I’m anti private secondary schools but in Flora’s case we simply had to because [insert reason]”
• they start in state secondaries and within a couple of years they are being moved because of issues/not meeting parent expectations. Often then private for 6th form if not before.
• in other cases the parents find it is actually fine with supportive parents

These threads always end up in a bun fight.

They don’t necessarily all take the same exams though because the school decides which courses to offer. Private schools tend to offer more language options than state schools for example. And I’m not sure any state schools offer IB any more.

For me, the idiological argument doesn't really stack up, because so much inequality exists within the state sector anyway, and will continue to do so as long as we have grammar schools and places allocated based on distance from the school. Those with money will be able to afford to tutor for the grammar places, or to buy property close to the best non selective schools. My DCs non selective state school benefits enormously from additional funding from a long established and wealthy educational trust. The state sector is not a level playing field by any means. So if the argument against private school is that it unfairly benefits the wealthy, then I think the state sector does too.

I think lots of people who have been priced out of private education for their children pretend to be morally against it, when in fact if they had the funds they would definitely send their children to private school.

An example is a couple I know who both enjoyed a private education at top London schools (think £30k+ a year) and who reminisce about their experiences (all the bloody time!).

When it came to schooling for their children, they suddenly developed political views that they had never before expressed regarding private education because they were forced to send their children to a state school. They’re not poor - she’s a doctor and he’s a music teacher, but unfortunately in London you typically need two high earners to comfortably afford school fees.

Well the privilege gap would close, but as you have shown it wouldn’t disappear. What would help is getting parents who are engaged in their child’s education educating their children in the state sector. It is those parents who volunteer in the school, raise funds for better resources etc and who play a part in developing a school culture which values education which then improves the state sector for everyone.

I firmly believe the best thing I can do for my kids is do my part in helping to create a society with reduced inequality - what sort of values would we then be teaching them by educating them privately? They already have so much advantage coming from a home with educated, professional parents, we can help with homework, develop cultural capital and help them to navigate life.

We use the local state comprehensive, which is absolutely not ‘leafy’, I firmly believe that almost all kids from homes that value education will do well enough no matter where they go to school.

There is also a tier of private schools - from more affordable to very very posh.

As a general rule I want a good school. Don’t we all.