I am happy with my children's state education but every so often I find myself talking to a 'private education' parent and just feel totally stressed

[Twiglett]

that there is no way my children can have the same quality and range of education and range of experiences and access to extra-curricular activities

poo-bum willy-faced bollox

For me, I think of private education as a kind of insurance policy but I'm not convinced that the cost of the premiums is worth it.

If my bright child goes to a reasonable comprehensive and works hard, he should do well.
If he goes to a selective grammar or a strong-performing private school, there is a greater opportunity for him to do well.

Is it worth £70k+ for him to have a better chance of doing well? Or is that £70k better spent on us as a family.

At the moment I'm sticking with the state sector, although I do sometimes wonder if I should enter him for the 11plus.

Part of my reluctance is that the nearest grammar would entail him catching a bus at 7.15am and likewise for good private school, whereas the local comp is within walking distance.

Exactly palaver. What you're recognising is that there's no way you can 'measure' and say, yes, that 70k is definitely worth it. To be honest, when you think what you could buy with 70k, in terms of experiences, trips etc it's a fair bit isnt it? Whereas if your child doesnt do significantly better in private, then you havent had a good return on your money.
Most children who are reasonably bright should be able to do well in the state system. I have come across a few children who may thrive better in private school, but usually this is to do with a very specific reason - eg a friends ds who is bright but very timid and poor social skills and his parents feel he wouldnt cope in state. I don't know how I would feel if I truly only had the option of awful state schools though

The first time I ever looked in on Mumsnet I came across Xenia on a thread saying that she preferred private education because they had nicer buildings and often a lake. I think that is misguided but it is the basis of envy. State school parents are envious of the buildings and grounds and imagine that all the children who go there have terribly easy, priveleged lives. It's nonsense. In reality independent school pupils are worked very hard indeed by very dedicated teachers who give much of their spare time to school. My sons play a cricket/rugby/hockey match almost every saturday against another independent school. When they play a state school (which they do a few times a year) they have to play during school time.

But every study ever done has shown the huge extra sums and life advantages people in general get through a a good private school education. It's one of the cheapest ways to ensure your child earns over £100k or whatever over a 50 year period. It's dirt cheap when you look at it from that point of view.

By the way I don't want the chldiren to have particular careers. I've said before I don't buy exam results. I buy an education which enables them to exploit their talents and if they choose to go into a monastery that's great. In a sense the good private schools are not about being an exam factory - the state grammars might be but not the best schools. Instead what I like is the over all education, educating beyond the curriculum, the moral values, the manners, the ability to talk to people, the education of the whole person.

I completely disagree that private schools offer 'the education of the whole person'. That is absolute bollocks. How does mixing only with other privileged children and learning the lesson that if you have money you can 'buy better' teach your child good values?

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I find the whole idea of private education abhorrent.

My sons' independent day school is likely to increase the fees by 6% in the next few weeks. The fees are already £14,000 per boy per year. Trips, uniform, sports kit, transport to school and of course exam fees are extras.

We struggle to meet the cost but think it is worth every last penny.

Xenia, I'm naot convinced that a private school education does ensure that your child will earn over £100k.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of privately educated children do earn that kind of money.

Educating beyond the curriculum is what goes on at home, in the relationships with family members, in the wider community etc. Children don't need to attend private school to have good manners, or moral values!
I would also point out to swedes that actually I don't think most people really believe children at private schools have easy privileged lives. A few do, but most don't. What they do have, however, is a distorted view of how most of their peers, and indeed most of society, are educated. Children are worked hard in any good school, private or state, and there are dedicated teachers in both sectors, as well as a few who are not dedicated and not very good.

Message withdrawn

MrsMattie - Your post is a bit chippy.

Has every study also weeded out the effects of the huge advantages that most privately-educated children have anyway, regardless of their schooling?

Children who are privately-educated are often, if not usually, from families who are better off. I appreciate families make their own choices about where they spend their money, but to even have the chance of spending money on private school fees requires more money, regardless of how many 'sacrifices' are made - most families I know could give up every holiday they have ever had or are likely to have, and still not be able to afford private fees.

These children also tend to come from supportive families - parents who are willing to spend huge amounts of money on school fees, research all the different schools and possibly have their children prepared for entrance exams, are by their very nature the sort who value education and will support their children.

For example Xenia, I'm sure your children would have been hugely advantaged no matter where they went to school. They come from a well-off family, have a mother who clearly places great importance on education, live in a nice home with presumably enough space for them to study, and from what you've said in many posts they have had the chance to take part in many activities and hobbies and to travel widely.

So I would suggest that a large part of their life opportunities stems from their family background and not necessarily from their private schools. I'm sure they would have done well almost anywhere.

It's honestly how I feel@Swedes.

I think most state school pupils are taught to the test/curriculum. That isn't a proper education. I'm not paying for my child to come out with a number of A*s at GCSE or whatever, I am paying for someone to explain a metre of verse and iambic pentameter to my sons.

ecoworrier - good post. I'm sure a lot of what you say is true. Which goes back to palaver's point about private education often being a kind of insurance policy. Most kids would probably do just as well without it, if the other things such as supportive home life, access to books, chance to travel etc are all there. So in a sense, a lot of parents may be paying for nothing, or certainly very little measurable benefit. I can see that if you take a child from a background where there is very little home support to be self motivated, not role model of parent(s) in employment, and with awful state schooling, then yes, by putting them in a private school you would make a measurable difference. But this is hardly the case for most kids in private.

Interesting view Swedes. I want my child to get a string of A* and get into a good university.

I can explain the Iambic pentameter to him myself

swedes - you are sadly out of touch if you think that state school pupils don't know iambic pentameter. Good schools teach beyond the constraints of GCSE and A level, while recognising the importance of achieving high results to open doors.

findtheriver - "Good schools teach beyond the constraints of GCSE and A level, while recognising the importance of achieving high results to open doors."

I agree good schools teach beyond the contraints of GCSE and A level. But I have no idea what you mean by "while recognising the importance of achieving high results to open doors"?

I just read the father's column at back of Sunday Times style magazine. This week he describes a visit to a state school. It is so... well state.... a child present with a helper who has special needs and is shouting out; a teacher like a police man shouting at the children before it even starts that if there's trouble they'll be sent to the head (anticipating trouble); group of stroppy girls facing away from the teachers; too PC teacher talking about how he mustn't swear in his presentation. Seemed to summarise all that I pay to avoid.

Sobernow's experience is not how most private schools are, not the better ones and children do much better there and they are much nicer places to be in, less graffiti, nicer environment, more like your own home, if you have a nice home.

Would my children have done fine anyway? Possibly. I always set a lot of store by genes. There are some incredibly thick children in some of the private schools I wouldn't send a child to. I put my foot in the other night - was saying XYZ private school was where children went who couldn't get in anywhere else (it is) and the mother next to me is planning to send her son there and she thinks the twins' school is pressured when it is so so non pressured. Just shows how people's views can differ. I then told her about my daughters' friend who got AAAA at that said private school and is now reading law at Bristol.

swedes - high exam results are usually necessary to get onto good University courses or to access certain professions. That is what I mean.

Xenia, I suspect the writer for the Sunday Times is more concerned with providing good copy than entering into a sensible debate about the value of private schools. I certainly wouldnt make any judgement about education on the basis of such journalism!!

Yep, definitely worth paying to get the full-on sweary presentations

And to avoid those pesky children with special needs of course

My sons are extremely kind and decent. I really resent this assumption that they must be little shits because we pay for their education.

Who has said they are little shits? From what I've read, most people are simply pointing out that they would probably be extremely kind and decent whether you were paying for their education or not.

Findtheriver I'm being a bit chippy.