Private educaiton - is everyone really rich that sends their kids?

[Clare123]

We are fairly wealthy, but I still think education 2 kids privately is so much money! I was wondering how most families do it?!

Trickerg

No one is, I think, having a go at you. But I would love to hear your responses/thoughts to the points I made below in an earlier post that no one has, as yet, engaged with? As a serving teacher in a state primary school, your views would carry weight on this thread, or at least they should do. The problem a lot have with the state system stems from these points, I feel sure.......

"As ever, you could make 'most' state schools as good as private schools via 5 easy steps;

1. Give Heads and Governors in state schools TOTAL powers, within the law, over their school. Numbers, admissions, exclusions, pay and conditions, the lot.

2. Create an ethos with two overiding characteristics; amibition and a love of learning.

3. Have a curriculum that encourages healthy competition in all areas, that openly rewards enterprise and endeavour.

4. Opt out of national curriculum and examination system as it stands. Instead, make typical timetable pretty indistinguishable from most private schools; including 40 minute lessons.

5. Discipline; clear, unambiguous and tough.

I'm not too bothered by class size, and I couldn't give a toss about sports halls, music centres, ski trips or A Level Greek and Latin.

Ethos, Ethos, Ethos - that's what people re-mortgage for. The sooner politicians understand this the better for all of us."

fivecandles, you're wrong in your assumptions. A full-time minimum wage salary of just over £10k would not pay for a private school place because there are costs just associated with going to work: primarily childcare- even if you have a school age child you're going to need wraparound care of some description to work FT hours. The there are the costs of commuting; your lunch; your work clothes.... and don't forget the tax and NI. There's no chance of paying for a school place on that income.

Riven, you may have missed the times when I said I was talking about those families with a SAHP BY CHOICE. In that case, the other parent is in a position to support the whole family on his or her income alone so any additional money the SAHP could go on to earn would be surplus to their basic family financial requirments.

FGS trik, that's faulty logic, the fact that I consider myself fortunate in that I have a good job (as a teacher) which I enjoy, etc, etc and am in a position to pay for private school fees does not mean that I consider everybody who has made different choices or unable to make choices at all to be 'unfortunate'!!

And dp and I are also both hard working teachers in the state sector.

Fayrazzled, I'll have to tell all the people at the dcs' school who do exactly that that actually they're doing the impossible then will I?

You see, I'm actually not making assumptions here I'm talking at least partly about my experience. The parents at my dcs' school find all sorts of ways around issues with childcare - grandparents, shift parenting, aunts, uncles, arrangements with other parents etc, etc. But also many have very small or no mortgages. One of my dd's friends' parents live with their parents in law etc, etc. Plus there's CB and working tax credit. And, once again, the scenario that I'm talking about involves one parent already earning a salary which covers the family's basic living expenses which presumably would stretch to the partner's clothes and lunch (which he or she would have to fund if the other partner were not working).

I don't get the choice thing. If you are a carer for a child with SN, is that your choice, because you could put them up for adoption or abandon them. Would that be a good choice if it meant you could pay for your other children to go a private school? Which would be the right choice if you had to choose between an expensive wheelchair for one and a private education for another?

For those who can't afford to put 2 children through private education was it always their choice to have sex/have 2 children.

Where does choice start and end? Who gets to decide that the choice is enough of one to count as a choice?

As I've said earlier there are a large number of children at independent schools whose parents are first or second generation immigrants. Often there are different cultural attitudes when it comes to education/ aspiration so a lot of families I know are ok with living with their parents even when they have their own family and have very clear ambitions which are very long term i.e. they want their children to be doctors or lawyers and are absolutely aware that this is going to need excellent grades and long term investment.

But 2children, I'm not in the business of telling other people what choices they should make. I don't particularly care what other people choose to spend their money on or not. I have made choices that enable my children to go to private school. I've never said that other people should just that SOME (note SOME not all or even most) COULD if they wanted to. Oh, and I have also been very, very lucky.

They must be very lucky to have parents that live near them, let alone who let them live with them. These resources are a luxury in our culture.

Well, maybe it's luck or maybe it's about choices or maybe it's a mixture of both. We used to live in London and chose to move up north when we had our first child to be nearer my parents and to be able to afford a house with some of our salary left over. Is that luck or is that choice or both?

We live in a very multi-cultural area where families typically stay close together. Islamic belief means that you can't borrow money with interest so you can't (easily) get a mortgage so it's very common to live with your parents or husband's parents until you can afford a house of your own. This means you may well have spare cash from your salary (which may or may not fund private education). Is this lucky? I don't know. It brings with it its own disadvantages.

willbreakmybones - just gave fascinating answers to your points, but as I reached the last one, they all disappeared!!

To paraphrase:

1. Think organisation too big to be fully accountable (+ other reasons I can't be bothered to re-type) We do have some control over admissions through national /local stats and population forecasts.
2. Of course we encourage ambition and love of learning! We're a SCHOOL!
3. Have very healthy competition between houses, inter school sports, etc
4. Curriculum is currently a-changing and broadening,to encourage children to link subjects, to discuss and to question.

We have 45-60 mins literacy and numeracy every day, and 20 mins phonics. KS1 SATs are not reported and only used as assessment tool. Many of us think KS2 SATs should go the same way (science already has)! Certainly don't want a whole day of discrete 40 min lessons.

1. Every single state school has a behaviour policy. We stringently follow it in our school. There are no riots.

However, there is that little niggly thing called inclusion (particularly of EBD children). If we have space, we can't refuse them, and they can cause problems for others. That, and a desire for exclusivity, could be quite understandable reasons for paying for education.

Have not read the whole thread. DH and I earn good wages. The fees at the British school of Brussels average at about 22K euros per year! There is NO way we could afford that. Most fees at that particular school are paid by employers. Though I do know people who have done it themselves, if only for say A levels.

If we were talking say 4k per term and the alternative was totally dire, then maybe....Luckily, so far I am totally happy with the state provision....

Private school seems to get a disproportionate amount of discussion on here given how few people actually use it.

I still don't buy the altruism thing. It's just a nice-sounding sweetener. But I've never bought the "ooh, all these middle-class children coming in from private schools will up the quality of the state system" either. That's not why I believe in a good state system for all. Note to those who still don't get it: this does not mean I think the current system, with all its problems, is perfect.

trickerg;

Thanks for that. Yep, I agree that the problem would be with what to do with the "hard to reach" groups that take up so much teacher time and energy. Perhaps hike taxes to pay for more special schools / PRUs?

Unquiet Dad;

Absolutely agree that an influx of nice middle class pupils would have negligible impact, see above point for starters. What WOULD increase the quality of state provision is a copper bottommed consensus as to how to raise children; something the middle class pre, say 1984, all had. Now it's all "who are you to tell me what's best for my child", as likely to be uttered by a Boden clad yummy mummy as a tracksuit wearing Vicky Pollard.

Therein, imo, lies the real tragedy; no consensus anymore amongst parents regarding education and schooling beyond child protetction and safeguarding policies. Sad, really.

If I had to choose a scenario that would benefit my children and the choices were between the benefits of a parent at home all the time to do all the stuff that stay at home parents do, and to be there at 8.55 and 3.15 every day and to be there for every match, play and assembly AND a private education, I would go for the stay at home parent every time.

No question - stay at home for me too!

I'd love to be a SAHM but unfortunately I have no one to fund that for me.

Willbreakmybones, I think you'd find that quarantining sufficient students in PRUs & special schools would be problematic, as an answer to 'hard to reach' students.

I also think that your suggestions are quite breathtakingly offensive to the parents of some of those who 'take up so much teacher time and energy'.

I teach in a good comp, & there's maybe 1% of our students who really do struggle to access the mainstream curriculum, or to cope with its demands on their behaviour.

If you wanted to re-create a private school environment, OTOH, you'd have to remove 5% at least. Overwhelmingly, their problem is that neither they, nor their families, value education or enjoy school.

It's a problem.

But I've said it before - if you want to make a school successful, make it difficult to get in. You can make the parental requirement money, membership of a religious group, willingness to enthusiastically counterfeit membership of a religious group, or willingness to stand naked on one's head in the town square for half an hour every Sunday for a year or two.

Any of them will work - just make sure you've got parents who've made some sort of investment & will be on their kids' backs to recoup it. Oh, & you need to be able to kick them out - to become another school's problem - as a secondary strategy.

Sorted.

What has always intrigued me...

People talk about making sacrifices for their children's education: getting a more high-pressure/highly paid job than you might otherwise have done; living in a smaller house; going out to work instead of being SAHP etc. All to raise that extra cash to send your kids to private school. Fair enough, each to their own.

But the weird thing is, the privately educated people I know did get slightly better jobs (City-based, high-pressure type jobs - again, each to their own)... but they are using their extra earnings from that to, er, pay the kids' school fees. As a scientist (and therefore in no danger of ever having a highly-paid job ), I can't help but see the private school system as a kind of a self-perpetuating parasitic growth living off the aspirations of the affluent. You get an extra/better paid job so you can pay the school fees, so your DC can do well, to get an extra/better paid job, to pay the school fees, so their kids.... and so it goes on.

All these people arranging their lives to feed this system. Odd, really, when you think about it.

RavenAK - i am liking your naked-standing-on-head admissions criterion, I think I'd find it less damaging to my dignity than pretending to be CofE. And you are right, it would work just as effectively. But I am crap at standing on my head, could I be one of those faux-statues that you give money to make them move instead? is that a viable alternative?

(and can I nick your copyright on that idea for use in future faith school debates?)

Isn't more a case of replicating what worked for you? If you had a good education wouldn't you want that for your dcs? I certainly would.

In the same way that people make choices on the basis that what was deemed good enough for them will be good enough for their children even if this is not in fact the case.

My brother had a very good state education by virtue of his intelligence and where we lived (good gs). He chose to send his dcs to state school but the schools in his area are nowhere near the quality of what he had and his dcs have done poorly as a result. He regrets it now but it is too late to do anything to change it.

No, Heathen, you jolly well can't, & if that's the best effort you're prepared to make, then St Gluebag's is the best your dc deserve.

I can see why people are tempted if their local state provision is appalling. From a purely selfish perspective, you get to avoid all those horrid children who'd otherwise be mucking about in your ddc's lessons. I've yet to be convinced that you get anything else.

Not necessarily rich - people with adequate means make choices about what to spend their money on. I went to a private day school from 11 on a half scholarship - no chance of going without one. But when my Dad was out of work for 18 months the school waived my fees. Examples of parents' professions: doctor, builder, various civil service roles, actor, journalist, publican, nightclub croupier, cook, accountant. Those kind of jobs. No landed gentry. But at uni I met a lots of Old Etonians - that type. A different league - house in Barbados, buying their own flats as students - no need for a mortgage, nannies, chartering jets, shooting estates etc, lots of aristos. But not all - some just with successful middle class careers - lawyers, bankers, landscape gardener etc.

My children go to a local village school - state primary. Very happy with it and will go to local high school if we can't afford the local private, although would consider the private school if we feel we can afford it without being miserable and losing all the joy in life to afford fees.

It is difficult to generalise 'hard to reach' groups. They may be EAL, people who had problems at school themselves, out of area parents, uninformed parents.... etc.

Sometimes children with behavioural problems come from very good families. Not all children with autism and ADHD (for example)come from 'hard to reach' groups! In the early years of primary school, this can be a problem as SN assessment can take a long time. The teacher and the rest of the class are expected to cope whilst copious paperwork wends its way through a series of outside agencies. I feel sorry for all involved, particularly the parents of the child with EBD, as their child is generally being labelled and stigmatised by parents in the playground, other children AND the powers that be.

Sorry, I'm really off at a tangent here. I'll shut up now!

The thing is, you can have the argument that if there is a parent who stays at home at the moment, if they got a job, paying minimum wage, that would pay for school fees.

But surely only if that job was as a teacher as they will have to pay for childcare for a huge amount of time that teachers don't have to, ie 6 weeks in summer, 2 weeks Easter, Christmas plus half terms.( i.e. 18 weeks a year v 4 weeks annual leave for most other people, and they can finish work at an acceptable time etc etc).

Plus a teacher's wage is presumably above the minimum wage???