any studies on private education value for money?

[beforesunrise]

I know there's all the statistics about the % of people in power etc coming from private schools (actually btw can anyone like some actual studies, as I keep seeing references but I'd like to read the source material). But i was wondering if there are any studies showing the return on schooling investment, ie the salary differential of private school educated people vs state educated. I know such studies exist in America, anything here in the UK?

thanks in advance

Surrey has definitely been easier to navigate - people don't put their dc's name down at the private schools before they are born, noone I know here would sleep in a playground for 2 nights for the privelege of paying for a slightly cruddy pre-school - just 2 examples of the craziness I encountered in NW6.
There is just not the extreme difference in performance between the state and private sector here so it's not so polarised but in a way that has made the state/private decision harder. FWIW I thought the decision where you are was a no-brainer

I'm not sure if this is at all helpful, but when making the same choice (although our circumstances are vastly different) I thought about this (and other) point:

The amount of money spent on education that could be spent on experiences (holidays, me not working full time, etc...) and also put into savings for them to buy a house.

Just find it odd to think of the effects of education being something you can easily 'measure' especially in terms of money or statistics.

If I decide to pay for violin lessons for dc1 at £25 an hour and this adds up to several thousand pounds over a few years what can I realistically expect for my 'investment'? Well, obviously I'd like her to enjoy those lessons and to gain some skills and knowledge. The chances of her becoming a professional violinist and making money out of that are miniscule and that would certainly not be my intention in getting her the lessons. The fact is I won't see a penny of that money again and dc1 and I would have very little to show for it and nothing financial yet it would have been worthwhile for the experience and skills and for the pleasure it would have given her and me and I wouldn't have resented the expenditure.

This is just how I see private school but on a bigger scale obviously.

I don't think it's at all helpful or sensible to look at private schooling as something which will produce quantifiable results in terms of income and later success in careers. I went to a very good school which is regularly one of the top five in the country for results and Oxbridge entrance but I don't earn a lot of money now and never have done. I do believe that my school gave me things that a state school would not have done but they are not to do with success in material terms, although many of my contemporaries are probably earning shedloads. What my school did for me was to give me the tools to learn, the ability and drive to follow my own passions, the self-confidence not to measure success by money alone and the freedom from being judged by others because they taught me to be my own judge and my own quality control. I think if you are sending your DC to a private school so he or she will earn a lot of money then you are doing it for the wrong reasons. Most private schools will go along with that ethos. The good ones won't. Pick a good school for your children, not just one that you have to pay to go to.

ok, for the last time, and for all you people in the cheap seats... I WILL NOT, I repeat, I WILL NOT chose a school for my dc based solely on the expectation of how much they will earn. I DO NOT regard my children as an investment. And I probably will not move to Surrey either Oh and I think I will not post in education anymore...

I hope that means everyone can sleep better tonight!

Oh dear, sorry. Maybe I hadn't read properly. I apologise.

Horton, dont apologise. you've actually been quite balanced in your post. At least you haven't called me "distasteful"!

mmmhhh btw.. how's Twilight (saw in your post you're reading stephanie meyer and am very tempted...)

BS - sorry about my flippant comment. I do educate privately but I have schooled myself into thinking that I do this to provide them with opportunities and a disruption-free education and if at the end of it all they want to be trapeze artists, that's absolutely fine. (I hope)

Beforesunrise, I wasn't sure whether or not to post because my thoughts didn't really address your OP, but I hope I haven't caused offence.

Okay, I read it again, all of it, and I did read it right. You are looking for a likelihood of future increased earning potential correlated with private schooling. At least, that's how it reads to me. Am I wrong?

I say again: I don't think it's at all helpful or sensible to look at private schooling as something which will produce quantifiable results in terms of income and later success in careers.

That is from my own experience of going to a private school which is supposed to be a powerhouse producing many many women who are off to change the world and earn squillions while they're at it. I do think there is a benefit (actually, lots of benefits) from education of this kind but it's not necessarily financial.

Oh, lots of posts while I was writing. Twilight is lots of fun, give it a go. Very good reading if you're not looking for anything too demanding!

I am amazed at the stick beforesunrise gets here. I think she has very reasonably set out her thinking and decision making process, in which value for money is only one aspect, one that she needs to find out more about and therefore asks for advice. She is obviously considering all the other points that people are making as well, so I can't understand why people get so wound up over it, as if she isn't considering happiness/well-being/curriculum on offer/etc at all.

I understand completely where she's coming from, especially if she falls in the category of reasonably well-off and supportive of education parent. Her children are indeed likely to do well, whether privately educated or state schooled, so she is wondering why it would be worth her money. But I'm a foreigner too and alien to the idea of public schooling...

(I'll hide behind the sofa now, I can see stick coming my way now...)

Ah well, I've killed the thread now...

Perhaps that's for the best

Beforesunrise - I used to work in the city as well. Before becoming parents, colleagues and I each did some calculations and not one of us could find a positive NPV associated with having children

beforesunrise - here are some statistics:
www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/education/pretty+posh+and+from+the+shires+britains+2008+beiji ng+olympic+heroes/2431167

I started doing the research myself, looking up the profiles of the Olympians, jotting down where they went to school, finding out whether it was independent or state, looking at their medal record, (just out of interest ) and then I found the above article - it had already been done!

It does illustrate value added in the sports arena ( at pun) - so there you go, something other than salaries, that should keep a few posters happy .

Any use to you?

From that article it seems you are better off going to a comprehensive than an independent school unless you are keen on rowing and eventing. The state schools where we live do rowing and I did horse riding at (grammar) school.

I don't think a private education equates to increased remuneration but what it does do is instill confidence. The main difference I've seen so far between my ds at private school and his nursery chums at state school is the opportunity to be extended. I don't mean hot-housing, rather ds being allowed to continue to learn to read (which he started at nursery). His nursery chums who are a year older but in reception at state school (started Jan)are being made to learn the alphabet (they can already read well) because the head says that is all they need to be doing to comply with the Foundation stage . My ds would be climbing the walls if he was made to do that.

Have only skim read as I am trying to inwind from writing my reports. Am not sure that lurking on eduaction threads counts as unwinding though.

My dp and I have been through a similar thought process with dd. Dp wants dd to go to a private school and I do not.

We have looked at the fees of local private schools and worked out what we could do with that money. We could pay the fees and get smaller class sizes, hopefully disruption free education and extra curricular activities. We could however send her to a school like the one I teach in, or hopefully the one I teach in. We would not get the smaller class sizes, but as I would imagine she would be in a top set she would get disruption free learning. The money we spent on fees could go on allowing dd to go on lots of school trips abroad ( something my school is known for which we could not afford if we were paying fees and lots of time for dd .

So looking at what we would get for our money, the nature of dd and what dp and I can provide the soundest investment for dd would be a state education.

I dont think it is mercenary to think this way and it is not a million miles from what the OP is talking about.

The difficulty is that you can't separate out the child's class, aspiration, and achievement level pre-entry, from outcome for the adult.

Example: I went to what has become "the state school college" of the traditional, ancient ones at Cambridge. It was over 80% maintained school intake. All well and good. But when you started to look more closely, the students tended to come from state schools in places like Richmond, so their parents had bought their way into a good catchment area; or from excellent - and extremely selective - grammars. And parental background was pretty solidly professional, too, in fact there was a joke that the access survey for applicants should read:

Are your parents: teachers/academics/other middle class professionals (delete as appropriate)

In essence, these parents were people who believed in state education on principle, but in every other respect were typical of many private school children's parents. I don't think there's any way to know for sure whether bright kids from supportive, educated backgrounds would do well at almost any school, and go on to earn well because that's what they've been brought up to expect and aspire to. It's hard to know if it's a private education that secures a place at a decent uni, which is where education really begins to have the potential to define life chances, or if the kids who do well privately would do well within a good state school, too.

I'm not saying the careful coaching, and extra help, and stretching to full potential in really good private schools isn't an advantage, I'm just saying that none of the evidence that might suggest that has much value, because even a family background that's pretty poor, on paper, might when examined more closely consist of a middle class single parent, so cultural capital is a definite factor. I think there are too many confounding factors for the info you're asking for to have any real value in evaluating outcome. The contribution is unquantifiable.

lol @ Richmond state secondary schools being excellent. The primaries, yes, outstanding. Secondaries - rubbish.(Or maybe you mean Richmond Yorks, not Richmond, Surrey? )

Qally, those studies I linked to do take account of those variables.

One trouble with comparing at the salary of private and state educated people is that there'll be a correlation between your own education and what you expect to do for your children, and this will affect salary. So, DP and I could afford independent schools for our children but, knowing we aren't going to, we are working in financially uncompetitive ways - we work part time and flexibly, we avoid promotion opportunities which don't fit with this, our salaries are correspondingly lower than if we were expecting to pay 3 lots of school fees. If we'd intended to do that we'd both be working full time, going for promotions, and earning quite a lot more. So salary is often linked to parental expectation of whether they'll be paying school fees, even at the point of choosing a career.

MollieO - by my calculations, attending a private school means you are 8 times more likely than your comprehensive counterpart to win a medal at the olympics. I would say that was value added, wouldn't you?

Happy to show you my calculations (I'm pretty sure they are sound )

Not sure how you came to your conclusion that 'you are better off going to a comprehensive than an independent school unless you are keen on rowing and eventing'. Did I miss something?

"attending a private school means you are 8 times more likely than your comprehensive counterpart to win a medal at the olympics. I would say that was value added, wouldn't you?"

Not necessarily, dolly. It is more complicated than that.
How do students get into independent schools? ? most get in by dint of the Bank of Mum&Dad but there will be a small minority who get in on scholarships because they have been identified at 11 as being way above average at academic studies or sport or music. So the independents may not create the uber-pupil but merely entice them in with discounts (and then ensure that performance continues with the threat of withdrawal of funding).
Unless beforesunrise's DC is in this beyond-G&T category, I think that this is a bit of a red herring.

beforesunrise - in an attempt to quantify the added value afforded by attending private school you could think of it this way:

Government expenditure per pupil per annum is roughly £3000 (in primary school)

Your expenditure should you choose to send DD to preprep and prep is £9000 (using your lower estimate!)

So, back to the Olympians, you might therefore expect pupils from private schools to be 3 times more likely to win a medal since 3 times more money is spent on them - right? But if you are keeping up with my post you will see that I have already worked out that they are 8 times more likely to win a medal.

Now THAT is value added.

(All this is done in an attempt to quantify what by many on here is seen as unquantifiable - it's a bit of fun for me really )

MrsG, 3 girls in my college had attended the same state secondary in the Richmond area, though I don't know which. And 4 contemporaries had attended the Latymer in Edmonton, including my DH - and there were several more Latymer pupils scattered around the other colleges.

Fennel, I remember that story hitting the news, but didn't know anything about the methodology - am generally a bit wary at trusting press reports of any research. But I can't say the reported outcome surprised me, given my university experience.

"So, back to the Olympians, you might therefore expect pupils from private schools to be 3 times more likely to win a medal since 3 times more money is spent on them - right? But if you are keeping up with my post you will see that I have already worked out that they are 8 times more likely to win a medal.

Now THAT is value added."

But as has already been flagged up by Senua, private schools offer scholarships/places to kids with special talents. So it is arguable that private schools cream off future Olympians, rather than create them.