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

senua - the exact phrase 'red herring' did pop into my head .

I am just giving beforesunrise something to think about that there is actual data on since that was her initial request.

Does my post immediately before this one take any account of your valid point? I think maybe it does, but school's still out so to speak .

Some private schools have a totally 'comprehensive' mix of pupils IME. I'm not sure how many though. Grammer schools do the 'creaming off'.

Grammar even!

Qally, the full research report for the 2008 study is at

www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/esrcinfocentre/viewawardpage.aspx?awardnumber=RES-148-25-0023

It's an ESRC study led by a Cambridge professor.

No really good private school is fully comprehensive, because by definition, they're oversubscribed. Like grammar schools.

I'm not anti private school. I was privately educated myself. I'm just pointing out that it's a poor investment, if future achievement is the criteria you're using. My own criteria would be, how happy is the child likely to be at the school in question?

Thanks, Fennel!

Agree that OP has had an unfair pasting here. I live near NW3 and the private school scene there is insane. The private schools are divided into a small number of exclusive schools with great facilities where you need names down at birth, and then others which have much poorer facilties than the comparable state schools. Some don't even have a playground - the kids are taken to the local park at breaktime. They are also mostly single-sex which I fine a bit weird at age 4.

The state schools I have seen have on average better facilities and a livelier atmosphere. They are also working hard at music, art etc and have good after school clubs. The main difference is that the socio-economic profile is lower.

However, there is hysteria among many middleclass parents that if you don't get into the right prep school or even right 'feeder' nursery, then your child's whole future is compromised. In this environment, it can be hard to go with instinct and trust in the local school. I think the OP's question about whether her child's future is going to be very different if she chooses one type of education is valid.

For a flavour, check out the eductational discussion here.

www.nw3kids.co.uk/id39.html

For us, the credit crunch has made the decision easy - we'll do state for primary at least and with parental support, I've no doubt that my DCs will be happy and do well.

thedolly, I just had a quick look at the medal winners and it seemed there was more of a mix of comp/ind, mostly comp in all sports except rowing and eventing which seemed almost exclusively independent. I'm not very good with statistics so I might be wrong

I agree with the mix at private schools, although you have to choose the right one. My ds's school is non-selective, only an interview is required (where he did most of the talking). Not SATs, commmon entrance, 11+ etc. I have no problem with testing at 11 if it broadens available opportunities but I certainly wouldn't put him through that at 4 like some of the pre-preps I've read about on MN.

My nephew is county level in two sports (rugby and cricket) but my brother has chosen to send him to a secondary school which has a small astroturf football pitch (only the one too) rather than putting him forward for scholarships at the local private day schools (the sort with huge playing fields). My brother is completely against selective education despite benefitting from it himself and despite financially being able to afford it. I think it is a shame as it is apparently easier to get selected for England if you come from a rugby playing independent school than a state school.

So what's the measure of happiness then?

According to recent headlines:

'Britain's children:unhappy, neglected and poorly educated'

The state sector is responsible for 93% of them or thereabouts.

So the real question:

Are children at private schools 'happier' than children at state schools?

Qally - last post in response to 'how happy is the child likely to be at the school in question?'

I think also whether something is value for money will often depend on how much you've actually got.
Those parents for whom fees are a struggle will ceratinly be looking at it more closely.
If it's a hard choice between holidays and extras or school fees then you would surely look at whether your children could do equally well at state school.
If the local school is dire then you will feel the sacrifice is worth it. If not then you may decide to opt for state and use your cash in other ways.
However for a lot of folk it isn't a choice between either fees or extras, they can comfortably do both. So for them value become less of an issue. Many of the parents at DCs school live in catchment of one of the 'best' schools in the country yet they choose the indie school for it's better facilities, broader curriculum etc

thanks for many interesting and thought provoking posts, and for the links etc.

i think there's a lot of underlying assumptions, some of which are implicit, some of which are unspoken.. one of them is the assumption that your children will do well regardless, and that therefore measuirng the "uplift" that private education can give (whether in terms of job satisfaction, sporting achievement, salary, or just general life outcomes- hopwever you want to define that, whcih is going to be subjective really) is a pointless exercise. I think people who think this way expect that the "floor" to their children's future life is really quite high- someone described it as a "basic middle class" expectation or similar, and someone else tellingly spoke in terms of "if my children *choose" to be unemployed".

we are not really talking about the difference between an impoverished exploited manual worker and a city lawyer, are we. whcih reflects the inherent middle-classness of this argument i suppose, but also, probably, the fundamental truth that our kids really will be allright, and it's down to us much more than the schooling they get.

i also think that, on some level, people who have been private school educated like to think that their comparative advantages have all been earned, and that the truth that, perhaps, some of them have been bought is quite unpleasant. I am by no means trying to suggest that private school= thick privileged undeserevedly successful kid, so please do not get me wrong. I also recognise and understand that a lot of it is more complicated than that- it;?s not just the school, it?s the socioeconomic background etc.

I am just trying, for my benefit rather than anything else, to disentangle this debate and why it invariably fires people up so much.

Incidentally, roastchicken, I recognise a lot of what you?re saying re schools in NW3- we too are on the borders. I would be really interested to compare notes- unless of course you think that?s too fraught with emotive issues, in which case, I would totally understand. I find it increasingly hard to talk to my friends about it.

FWIW we are leaning towards hoping she gets in one of two RC schools nearby, one of which is ?outstanding?, the other is on paper hopeless but we actually quite liked it. I suppose we can always change our minds later- I think it is not as hard as people think to switch into private schools in later years, even in the crazy world of NW London independent schools!

Beforesunrise - I'm a bit further east than you, but happy to chat. Do CAT me.

Having a happy child is so important and I think that has little to do with the private v state continual debate. Home life counts for a lot and I think school is second in this. If you have a stable home life with involved and interested parent(s) then you are most of the way there. I chose the less favoured local private school as they children seemed sparkier and I could 'see' my ds fitting in. I went with gut instinct. One of the schools I visited and liked least is in the top 20 state primaries with outstanding Ofsted. I remember walking round trying my best to like it (feeling that I should because of everyone raving about it) and I really couldn't.

I have read occasional studies on this but can't remember where. But it must be hard to assess. Some of my children may do well because of their accent, IQ, looks even as much as their private schools. The private school is part of the mix which I am sure will have helped as we limited ourselves to school in the top 10 or 20 by A level results in the country and happened to have children bright enough to pass those entrance tests but I never felt I was buying them future income. I want education in a very broad sense - I want some of the best classical music in the country, sport, hobbies so that whatever their interests they are exploited and what they end doing (three are at university stage) is completely random but based on all those chances a lot of which were introduced through school.

I will be as happy if one chooses to enter a monastery and earn nothing, struggles as a musician or goes into the area the older two seem to be where starting salaries are about £60k and potentially they may earn £1m to £2m a year.

Beforesunrise, this thread actually hasn't kicked off at all into private ed v non-private ed and I haven't seen anyone get fired up at all except possibly you. Yet.

To clarify, I never described YOU as 'distasteful' just the idea of expecting some sort of return on your investment when talking about educating your children. I personally do find that distasteful.

As I've said I now appreciate there are many considerations for you in your choice of schooling for your kids. However, the ONLY consideration that you mentioned in your OP was about financial return and salary diferential so nobody could know that then (although you've since explained it).

As other people are suggesting as well this is an impossible argument. No doubt you can find statistics which tell you how many MPs went to private school (I think it's over 50%), how much on average they earn etc, etc but this isn't actually very revealing.

The children who go to private school are ALREADY privileged. Their parents have enough money to afford the fees and have chosen to spend their money on their children's education thus demonstrating their value of education and/or aspiration. Most will have been selected academically too. Children in receipt of scholarships or bursaries will be particulalty gifted and/ or talented. So the pupils have already been self-selected and then academically selected BEFORE they set foot in the school.

It's therefore no surprise that these children are likely to go on to become adults who are relatively high achieving and high earning is it?

What's impossible to work out is how likely it is that they would achieve what they /have/ will do if they had been to state schools and the research here suggests that it's very likely.

In the case of my own children dp and I (both teachers) have a very clear sense of our children's academic abilities. Given us as parents I have no doubt that they would have done well academically wherever they went (as dp and I did - both state educated) but as a result of their private education they will probably do even better (meaning a couple of A* where they might have got A, A where they might have got B and so on). I have already seen the benefits of the private education in terms of extra curricular activities which they would never have experienced at a state primary. But I don't think that any of this will make a huge if any difference to the careers they choose and their eventual earnings. I chose the dc's school for the here and now rather than the future. For the difference in experience and their happiness whilst AT SCHOOL more than anything else.

"Some private schools have a totally 'comprehensive' mix of pupils IME." No they don't. They may be non-selective and therefore have a truly comprehensive mix of children whose parents can pay the fees. That's not the same thing as truly comprehensive at all!

Seeker - you have obviously chosen to idealise the idea of Comprehensive Education to include social mixing. This is not my understanding of what Comprehensive Schools were primarily designed for.

Private schools with a totally 'comprehensive' mix of pupils were in existence long before the introduction of Comprehensive Schools in the late 50's/early 60's.

Ironically, 26% of Comprehensive Schools now have low level selection (presumably based on ability [hmmm] ).

Claim the term 'comprehensive' for the working classes if you must but I don't think it is helpful to do so.

(BTW I'm not knocking your ideal seeker - you just need a new word for it, that's all .)

too many ms, for [hmmm] read

i dfyou want a simple answer - yes private school confers huge advantages and most children will yield many times over in extra salary in the course of a 40 year career the cost of the fees (and I suppose if you've girls and send them to that sort of good connectinos posh thicko girl school it will help you ensure she marries a rich man too).

Most in depth studies and child psychologists say that the most important factor in a child's education is the support of those around them. They need to be pushed to do their best and understand what their potential is and how to achieve it.

This means helping with homework, being involved with their school life, getting them interested in things and doing things that are educational but fun. Teaching them how to research things and discover new things by themselves - these are all the important factors and a large number of studies show that the actual school itself is of much less significance than is normally perceived - it's all about the child's attitude to school and academia.

I came from a workin class family which, through my dad's hard work and determination, then joined, in monetary terms, the middle classes. We went to private school at a young age due to language problems (we didn't speak English and back then it was a huge issue and almost unheard of). Once our English was fluent, we went to state schools.

3 out of 4 of us went to university and all gained Hons degrees. My brother went to Oxford and gained the highest degree of the university the year he graduated. One of us became a musician, another an in-house lawyer and another jacked in the rat race after earning ridiculous amounts of money to become an actor. the 4th sibling has been drifting through a life of excess, drugs and general mayhem. All very different.

I truly believe that what we are doing today is not so much to do with what schools we went to but how we feel about ourselves, our peers, our interests etc.

Ultimately, private schools open up doors that normal state schools do not - networking, favouritism, connections for clubs, jobs etc BUT it also has its downside. Private school environments are not representative of where they are located and usually more pressured than the non private sector.

And lastly, i don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty about their reasons for which education route they cboose for their children. If parents feel better about the private route and believe the costs will have positive 'returns' (whatever they may be), then they probably will because they have a positive attitude!

Dear Beforesunrise,
I have found this a very interesting thread. I feel your original question has been answered now.
Just a thought from a parent of two children.
ds, eldest went to prep school after a very unhappy time at primary, was very happy there and chose to accept place at grammar school rather than continue private for senior ed. I am delighted with his academic progress but feel the pastoral care has been poor and he lacks confidence.
dd in light of our experience with her elder brother started at prep and is in year nine now. She failed grammar exam , was about 120 in list of 500 girls and continued with scholarship and bursary at private senior school. I have to say that the pastoral care and general care of the girls is outstanding. She is progressing well in all subjects but has been identified as gifted and talented in certain areas. She exudes confidence and I am proud of them both for each of their talents. Will their type of education affect their future possibly but the schools they attend are right for them.

i went to private school from the age of 4, 4-16 at hot house girls school where i was bottom of the class and took into my 30s to stop feeling a failure academically. however, from 16-18 went to a mixed school where i was a full boarder and absolutely blossomed as the emphasis was on who you were as an individual not whether you achieved straight A grades. i left with 2 a levels grade E but confidence in myself, having arrived as a very shy girl, i left a bubbly adult. i ended up teaching for 14 years and was one of a few privately educated colleagues. it does make you feel a bit different sometimes as your experience of education is not the same as theirs. it has not though, impacted on my career eg made leaps because of it and sometimes i have been a little embarresed because of it, i also did my teacher training at oxford which again gives pre conceptions! however, as with all schools, private schools vary. you can get very intense academic ones and those that are more pastorally biased. faith schools tend to be more caring as my 6th form one proved to me. However, much of it also depends on the individual child and where is best for them, can they cope and suceed in state school or will their learning esp if talented in an area improve in private? i know i would have been very different if id gone to the local state sch as i was a shy little wall flower and would have struggled but most probably survived.
wether those who attend private schools achieve higher jobs, i don't know. we were certainly given the aspiration to achieve and the confidence that you can do it which having taught in state schools for yrs, i havent seen. also as many parents had achieved, there was knowledge about what you could do and yes you do have confidence to go for things. maybe we need to give this confidence to all pupils regardless of background and not say that people from certain areas/schools cant be x, w,z as no one else has. my dh was state educated. did an mod aprenticeship and now earns, way more than i ever could and is a higly qualified engineer so the argument goes both ways.

Out of interst, I asked around my colleagues at work what kind of school they went to, as this has never been something discussed. We are all high earners, but out of a cohort of 32, 1 went to an independent senior (boarding school), 9 to grammar schools ( showing our age!) and 13 to others ( tech, VA, comp etc). None of went to Russell group universities, but 10 of us went to redbrick unis or 'new' (polys), and the public school boy went to Sandhurst. As we are all in our 40's this is only representative (if it is!) of those educational opportunities available 20-30 years ago, so don't see how you candraw any meaningful data from that, as demographics will have changed dramatically in the meantime. Also - the jobs we do (IT industry) did not exist when we were @ school, so we had no aspirations at that time to be doing this job in our forties..
When DH & I have been considering education for the DC we have been acutely aware that the world WILL change again out of all recognition before they are adults - for one thing - oil will be scarce or have run out!!! - so we can't second guess their careers, only equip them as best as we can to be flexible and able to seize opportunities and respond to challenges. As I have said before, I don't give a hoot what their exam results are - we are not attempting to 'buy' A levels, or entry to top unis, just doing what we can based on what is available to us now to give them a happy and fulfilled childhood as a basis for whatever the future throws @ them...Where we live that is only available by paying fees.

Just a thought Beforesunrise. You say you are looking at schooling for a three year old. If you decide to send your child to a state primary you still have the option to transfer to a private school later. I think it is easier to transfer from state to private than private to state although some may disagree.
Whatever you choose you do have the option of changing your mind - I think it is easy to forget that. For my part I have decided to send my dd to out local primary. At the moment she seems happy and is being stretched. I went to a private school and I teach at one so I fully understand the advantages they offer I have decided to put off sending her to a private school as long as she is happy where she is.
Hope this helps and I wish you all the best. Finding the right school is really tough!