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.

Well, it was Labour under Andrew Adonis who started that off. Literally privatising the administration of schools and handing over huge sums of money for the privilege. No more oversight by local authorities, just private fiefdoms run by CEOs paid eye-watering sums.

Of course, Labour also promoted the PFIs that have had a choke-hold over schools too. Licence to print money.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/pfi-bosses-carillion-money-george-monbiot

Absolutely no chance.

We could afford it (at a push) but I'd never send my kids to private school. I don't judge those who do - we all do what we think is best for our kids - but I disagree with it. Only the wealthiest 7% go to private schools and I feel strongly that I want my children to mix with a much wider range of kids. Part of my education was seeing how others lived, seeing their struggles. That shaped my political beliefs today.
I have a couple of lovely friends who went to private school but sadly knew quite a few entitled kids who would look down on me because I went to a state school. I absolutely abhor snobbish attitudes and I want to avoid my children learning these views. Our friends daughter is 10 and privately educated. She's already saying to my children "I go to a much better school than you."

@AgnestaVipers well I did say "the government" - not particularly "this government" 🙂
Labour, Tory, whoever - it's a ridiculous scheme.
I can't believe there are towns that have literally no LA run schools. If whatever education style the Academy Trusts chooses to use is not suitable for your child you can't opt out and go to the local LA school - because there isn't one. The government (whichever government) is failing to provide a suitable education for so many children. It's horrible.

Where did the statistic come from please? I find that quite surprising.

Obviously it’s anecdotal but the majority of the parents at DCs school are teachers, nurses, plumbers, accountants, which certainly according to average salaries wouldn’t put them in the wealthiest 7%.

Unfortunately you are very unlikely to get a balanced view on here OP!
My family were very poor (beyond what MN thinks is poor) went to a very mediocre comp in a south coast city and my Exdh did in London.
We worked hard, earnt well and sent our DC to top London indie schools.
Neither of us worked in education then but be wanted them to have a better ride than we did.
I changed careers and now teach in an indie.
I would walk over coals/ do several jobs/do anything to n educate them better than they would get in a state school now.
So… yes -if you can afford it -pay. They only get one chance at education.

well I did say "the government" - not particularly "this government" 🙂
Labour, Tory, whoever - it's a ridiculous scheme.

Absolutely - and I suppose that is why I am pragmatic about the fact people send their children to private schools - neither Labour or Conservative sufficiently value education, so one does what one can for the next generation within the crappy constraints in the UK.

Where did the statistic come from please? I find that quite surprising.

It's not the wealthiest 7%. It's 7% of the population of schools in the UK.

@zigzag716746zigzag
7% of children go to private school which is probably where the stat comes from.

However, this obviously doesn’t mean that only the wealthiest 7% go to private school because (as many on this thread have said) some people who can afford it choose not to send their children there.

Also, many people dip in and out of the sector. The 7% is children privately educated at any one time. More like 20% of children go to private school at sixth form level. So at least 20% of parents can afford it for at least two years.

And some will be on bursaries and scholarships and have parents on much lower incomes.

Yes, that would make much more sense.

So does inherited wealth but I can't see anyone looking to prohibit it.

That figure is quite widely known. It rises to up to 16% for sixth form. Have a look at The Institute for Fiscal Studies

Much easier to equalise education than to abolish inherited wealth.

What would those who are ideologically opposed do if there child was extremely unhappy at school though and there was no state alternative (as is often the case particularly if trying to move in year)?

This was my position. I was so unhappy at my state secondary at age 12 that I developed OCD, panic attacks before school etc. Behaviour was terrible and there was a lot of bullying. Not much education went on amongst all this. Teachers were clearly very stressed. I just couldn’t cope with the environment. My parents were somewhat ideologically opposed to private education but eventually agreed to move me to an academic all girls school where I was very happy. I don’t really believe any parent would put their child through years of unhappiness at school on political grounds if they had another option. The state system doesn’t suit all children very well- some schools probably don’t suit any child - and if that’s your child it’s really hard.

I can find statistics that support 7% of the population going to private schools. Nothing at all to support only the wealthiest 7% going.

Should have clarified, I meant 7% attend private school, not the wealthiest 7%

@AgnestaVipers

"WHY DON'T WE INSIST ON GOVERNMENTS PROPERLY FUNDING EDUCATION?"

+++

1. because young people don't vote so spending on education is always going to be lower priority for Governments wanting to stay in power than say pensions.
2. where is the money going to come from?
3. in order of Government spending (2022-23) (i) social protection (mostly state pensions) is £341b (ii) Health £245 b (iii) Debt interest £116 b (iv) Education £113 b.

But something is seriously wrong in the UK when more is spent on just paying interest on Government debt (which is entirely unproductive) than on education which is an investment in the future of both society and the economy.

There's always money for wars...and PPE.

This is a very interesting thread. My mum and her siblings were all privately educated and she was from a very affluent family. My dads brother won a scholarship to my mums brother school - hence how they met. My dad wasn;t from a rich family like my mum so private school wasn't really an option. All my cousins on both sides went to private school as did most of my parents friends children. I was bullied at secondary school for being the posh kid and I didn't really fit in as we went skiing in the winter, went to the theatre had clothes from boutiques etc. I had nothing in common with the other children so sometimes I wish my parents had spent money on sending us to private school where we would have fitted in. They couldn't have afforded holidays, a lovely house and a really lovely childhood full of great memories if we went to prv school so they prioritised giving us the holidays etc. I felt myself and happy when with my cousins or my parents friends children who were privately educated because their day to day life was on a par with mine. This was in the 1980s and actually a couple of my cousins have become successful relatively well off people but private school has made no difference to the others.

Now we all have children their is only one cousin whose children attend a private school. But I do think today that you get a far more varied mix of children in state run academies or comps. You have children whose parents have a house abroad, or children that ski at christmas and this is perfectly normal.

It isn't an option for us as we couldn't afford it especially not if wanting to do nice things like days out and holidays.

However i did resent my parents for putting me in a comprehensive and all I wanted was to be around like minded peers when growing up.

Interesting points about wanting to have children experience a diverse social environment. Many around here would associate diverse with poor behaviour, disruption, familial lack of aspiration etc. Even those that would never consider private schooling as a matter of course would consider it given the social make up of some of the town's comprehensives with their appalling reputations.

A lot is said about snobbery but inverse snobbery exists where pupils with intelligence, ambition or wealth are brought down by constant comments by other pupils. SEN provision and management is appalling too.

The 1944 education act states "It shall be the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude". The education my child was receiving at a state school was neither efficient nor suitable to their age or aptitude. So I fulfilled my legal duty and moved them to a school where it was.

An alternative question is : If you live(d) in a grammar area, would you send your child to a grammar school? It's basically the same question, but with the money issue (and therefore the financial envy and sour grapes) removed.
Many of those who are saying they wouldn't use private education because it's a two-tier system which creates an unfair society would still choose a grammar school for their kids if the kids got into one, and persuade themselves that this was just fine because they got in "on merit" and no money changed hands. They'll even persuade themselves that a small fortune spent on 11+ books and tutors doesn't count.

If you want a more equal society, the logical thing to do is to vote for one, and to support a party or organisation that will create one. You don't have to sacrifice your children on the altar of your woolly left-wing principles, nor do those principles logically compel you to select only from the lowest available tier. Sending your child to a shit school because you are morally opposed to something doesn't improve the school or the school system - it creates an unhappy child and in due course a resentful adult.

@lattemerde

Good post and I think a lot of proposals agree. I certainly (and I doubt none of us would) wouldn't sacrifice my children's future on a political stance. I wonder if many of us start in life with a more virtuous view of life and gradually time and experience makes us take on your views?

@lattemerde agree re aptitude. People who trot out the ‘bright children will do well anywhere’ line clearly haven’t experienced the absolute tedium of being a bright child in a comprehensive that doesn’t have the resources to adapt lessons to your higher level. Sure you’ll do well in the sense of achieving the grades but it’s not an experience I’d wish on my child.

‘The bright child will do well anywhere’ and ‘children from better-off homes will lift state schools’ arguments are both nonsense.

The first is wrong for the reason you give but also, and more fundamentally IMO, it’s just not true. A school where there’s disruption to lessons and where academic ability is a cause for contempt among peers is unlikely to do well. A great many smart kids underperform in that environment.

The second is well-meant but very unpleasant. It supposes that poorer children just need some middle class or better-off child to emulate for them to become better students. It’s incredibly patronising. In any event, it’s also unpleasant to argue that some children should be obliged to attend a school for the benefit of others.

What would lift state schools far more than money is good discipline, less pressure not to exclude the worst behaved pupils and a clear understanding that parents cannot kick off when their child is disciplined. But, at least to judge by MN, that’s all too horrible to contemplate.

@Spaghettieis Yes, I've heard that line trotted out by the entire extended family - most of whom live in grammar areas and sent their kids to grammar schools, but still choose to sneer because we've paid for private (in an area out of catchment for grammars).

@mids2019 You might think no parent would sacrifice their children's future on a political stance, but when I passed the 11+ my parents (who, hypocritically, had attended private/grammar schools) refused to let me attend the grammar school my friends were going to, dumped me in the non-selective alternative (notionally a comp but practically a secondary modern) and kept me there even when I told them I was utterly miserable. But they got virtue-signal and feel good about their social conscience, so the misery of a child is a price worth paying.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying yes agreed. A variant of the "children from better-off homes will lift state schools" idea is that in a school where there are few bright kids, you should split them up so that in every class there is a role model for the others. I've seen this idea referred to as being "used as fertilizer". The two problems with it are (a) nobody asks the fertilizer how it feels about being used, and (b) the large number of less bright kids don't see a very bright outlier as a role model - they see them as a nerd.