To think unless you’ve been to private school you don’t really understand why it’s so valuable?

[huopp]

I have so many people telling me the state system is fine, a private school just has better facilities, that the teachers aren’t any better, that the extra curricular stuff can be done after school at a state school but at a different venue etc etc…

whilst all the above is true, it isn’t what makes a private education valuable? And that you have to actually have lived it, been to one, to get the whole experience it gives you across the board and not just academically?

i think this is why a lot of people with ‘new money’ don’t always spend it on school fees. In contrast those who have been privately educated mostly want the same for their children.

My siblings was and I wasn't.
My sibling is not ambitious at all (which is fine of course) but has a much better lifestyle than me, a lot more confidence and a lot more money.
I definitely see the value. Looking back I'd have truly benefited, I was/am academic but wasn't supported and a lot of people I were at school with were from a very different culture (I mean in terms of parents and lifestyle, rather than race/religion/nationality) to me, I just didn't fit in.

Oh @Brexile you are so deluded it is funny!
Are you a private school parent trying to convince yourself you haven't wasted £100k?

Law.

No, I read classics at Oxford. DC were home schooled in the UK for years, then the younger ones went to state school in France. DD1 just got an offer from the Sorbonne, so I could probably argue the opposite: that any money spent on private education would have been wasted, if the end goal is a place at a prestigious university.

Well, law at least has the advantage of being a subject that (pretty much) nobody has studied before, so at least your public school classmates wouldn't have been ahead in terms of subject knowledge. But what about general knowledge, polish, savoir être? Or did you possibly go to a a very new college, with a high state school intake?

I went to a private school and then Oxford. I felt less educated than most of the other private school students and quite a lot of the state school students.

Conclusion - all private schools are not the same. All state schools are also not all the same

@redskydarknight That's very true. The other students on my course were all from major public schools and they wouldn't have given people from lesser private schools the time of day, same as they didn't give me the time of day. If there are such huge disparities among private schools in terms of social prestige, then it seems quite likely that there are big disparities among them in educational standards too.

I went to Queens’, one of the medieval colleges. I had great general knowledge, had read extremely widely, was very confident. I had much less money than most people and couldn’t afford skiiing holidays for example. But I think your whole premise is bananas. There are state schools that push cultural capital brilliantly and there are parents of state school kids that make their kids confident etc.

Not our experience at all. Two dd not particularly academic, not particularly sporty. Both pretty reserved , not at all bold. School have been brilliant at helping them find their own ways to shine while also building capability and confidence in areas where they don’t have a natural affinity. They recognise classmates’ talents, but also see that with hard work they can do it too. There is no hierarchy.

both dd are far more confident than they would have been had we remained in state. Not because they think they are good at things that they aren’t, but because they believe that with hard work they CAN be good at most things.

Exaactly

Talking the talk but not walking the walk

Over the past 14 years, the UK electorate has consistently embraced and found convincing on this particular idea. So much have done something right.

https://www.etoncollege.com/news-and-diary/school-news/old-etonian-medical-society/
Look. this is the point of Eton. It's not about 'blowing smoke', it's clever, engaged boys having access to extraordinary educational and cultural opportunities and supported by the Old Etonian community. There are eight applicants for every place because so many clever, engaged parents see what it can do for their sons. Undeniably, it's a massive privilege, but it's also a powerhouse churning out clever, engaged and connected young men who are primed to make their mark on the world. It's possible that those OEs who choose politics are not the best examples but the most visible.
Other independent schools follow the same formula, although few can match the quality and breadth of the Eton extracurricular offer, facilities or OE network. There's nothing to stop any school, state or private, adopting the same approach, and many do. But many don't, predominantly within the state sector, because their position is secure and doesn't have to be justified continually to parents. My local state school has no such aspirations for its students, and so clever, engaged parents with the means to go elsewhere, go elsewhere.

It's not about 'blowing smoke', it's clever, engaged boys having access to extraordinary educational and cultural opportunities.
@WaftherAngelsthroughtheskies

This is absolutely true, but on mn all Etonians are thick because two became politicians who posters don’t like.
There are two young men from our local town who went to St Elmo’s Comp, the town’s school, and they went to jail.
Therefore all students at St Elmo’s Comp, present, past and future, are criminals.

Yep, unfortunately a lot of MN thinking is quite basic and polarised. As you say, there a few very poor examples of political figures being churned out of these establishments, but no one wants to discuss the surgeons, engineers and many other professions - who go on to make sizeable contributions to society. It’s an inconvenient truth.

Yes, @80smonster it's very much 'small, nuturing indie' = good (or at least justifiable on SEN grounds) : ancient scholastic institution = evil, and all that entails....

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jun/21/my-working-class-dad-sent-me-to-private-school-now-i-feel-that-ive-failed-him

"it's clever, engaged boys having access to extraordinary educational and cultural opportunities"

Take a group of clever kids with a ton of support at home, ruthlessly shield them from coming into contact with even a hint of social disadvantage at school, then shower them with vastly more educational resources than almost every other child in the country has access to, and stand back and marvel.

But the 'inconvenient truth' is that none of these kids are any more deserving of being given what they need to attain their human potential than any other kid.

I haven't ever come across a state school that "pushes cultural capital". (I think they might exist, but are rare and rather fancy, like Tiffin Girls School for example.) Even the really good grammar where I went for 6th form was more focused on getting the weaker students to spell and punctuate correctly than anything else: the only nod to cultural capital was a suggestion by one teacher that we should all listen to Radio 4! (We didn't.)

I read a lot, went to summer schools for Latin and Greek, and generally did what I could (short of listening to the same radio station as my dad, lol) but "you don't know what you don't know". In the first term at Oxford, for example, it transpired that we were all supposed to know formal logic! I wasn't even told that was what it was, we were just given this book full of algebraic squiggles with no explanation. Eventually I was excused, but it was an excruciatingly embarrassing experience, and by no means the last.

“But the 'inconvenient truth' is that none of these kids are any more deserving of being given what they need to attain their human potential than any other kid.“

You can apply that trope to pretty much anything.
Why do some children get to live in detached houses, go on multiple holidays, have their own rooms, lovely pets, books and toys, piano and tennis lessons? Answer: because their parents paid for it! Are those children more deserving than others? No, we aren’t all born into the same circumstances.

So why are certain schools being singled out? When it is so much broader than that, in reality.
Answer: Because they are an easy target for politicians.

No, they aren't more deserving. But neither are they less deserving. Educational privilege is a continuum. There are pupils of Winchester, St Paul's, Wycombe Abbey, Eton at one end, but there is also privilege for those whose parents can fund a home near a great state secondary over those priced out of the catchment. There is privilege for those with access to grammars over those who have no access to an academic school. There is educational privilege for pupils in dynamic, 'Teach First' inner city schools over those in rural market towns where the only school 'Requires Improvement'. There is educational privilege for children whose parents provide extra tuition, music lessons, swimming lessons or sports coaching where these aren't freely available. There is educational privilege for children who have a quiet space to work in, over those with nowhere to do their homework. There is educational privilege for children whose parents read to them at bedtime over those not read to. There is privilege for those children who can walk to school after a proper breakfast, over those who arrive at school hungry. There is educational privilege for children who can rely on a safe, well-ordered home-life over those who have to navigate chaos and fear within the family. There is educational privilege for children who are able to learn in their mother tongue over those who are still learning the language in which they should be learning their lessons.

In almost all these circumstances there is educational privilege worked for, fought for or paid for by parents who want their children to do at least as well in life as they did. The point about privilege is that it is unearned by the recipient. Whether young people are deserving or not hangs on the effort they make to get the most out of the hand they're dealt, and the educational tries they convert.

I would argue that the parents who society should be castigating are those who abdicate responsibility for getting the best education they can for their children whatever their means, not those who prioritise education over all else and stretch every sinew to give their children the best start they can.

Education policy and provision should never be a race to the bottom.

You can't tell anything about someone from their voice alone

^

No. But you can judge.

But here is the thing, your kids really need to see ALL of society. They just won't get that at private school.
They need (in life) to be able to communicate with all levels of people.
I was privately educated, and it fucked me up. My dc were state educated and they have friends from all walks of life. Dd2 has gone to a prestigious uni, where she sees the privately educated as "blinkered" and "stupid". Yes, they have their connections etc,but they don't see the real world. Dd1 volunteers with charities and she sees again a different side of life, people who have nothing.
It's not just about your kids "per se" , it's about what they learn and can contribute to the world
I've been very impressed with state education vs my private education

I’ve also taught in both and visited a lot of other schools across both sectors as part of other jobs in education. The quality and focus of teaching is almost universally better in the state schools. They are more up to date on current best practice, they have a deeper understanding of how to adaptively teach and they aren’t focussed on trying to do ‘what the parents want’. Some (obviously not all parents) of the expectations from private school parents, particularly around what they think they child should be doing or achieving are damaging.

The form tutoring and wholistic education is also generally better these days in state. There is a lot of individualised support and some really excellent school-wide systems in place for supporting social and emotional development. SEND provision is generally more astute too, although lack of funding can make waiting lists for external support very long.

On balance having seen both systems the advantages of private are networking with other wealthier families and better sports and music facilities. There is also the confidence I think a previous poster has mentioned; unfortunately this often comes across as arrogance too and isn’t necessarily a benefit. There’s also for most a few extra weeks holiday a year which some kids really benefit from.

The most well-rounded kids I taught were state sector and because of having experience of both I will be educating my kids in the state sector.

Dd2 has gone to a prestigious uni, where she sees the privately educated as "blinkered" and "stupid.

In that case your daughter is just as ‘blinkered’ and narrow minded if she writes off all privately educated people.
You say she has friends from all walks of life - but none from private schools presumably.

Blinkered and stupid is harsh and unfair. That said the privately educated children we know are in a bubble. Dh would argue that’s a good thing and is basically what you are paying for I can definitely see the advantage of that. Who wouldn’t want their children to live a nice life surrounded by nice people?

But it means most have no idea - why would they? Dd2 as I’ve said before straddles both groups socially and adores her private school best friends but this is her view too.