Is private school really worth it?

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

God all the extra curricular stuff isn't billed at ours - just those that involve an outside teacher. There's MASSES of clubs and things included, but it is something the school prides itself on, so this might be unusual.

I wonder why some of the earlier posters seemed to think that sports and music don't happen at state schools. Ours is a city state junior school, so no playing fields, but the teams always do extremely well in local competitions. All children are offered the chance to learn to play instruments. Choir, drama club, art club, there's loads of things going on.

Of course, it's impossible to know how well dd would have done at a different school. But she's doing well at this one, so that's good enough for me. And she is never going to grow up feeling "out of her comfort zone" when speaking to less educated people- this in itself is a benefit that I might have considered paying for

Bit of a Sunday night ramble here, but I've met great (and foul!) kids from both sectors but have to say that the state school kids seem a hell of a lot more rooted, socially aware and also don't seem half so driven by success or failure. This isn't to say that they're not motivated or ambitious, more that they're realistic and appreciate that it's not a given.
To give an example, my neice and nephew are utterly lovely kids, both privately educated since they toddled, but honestly they don't live in the real world. They're driven everywhere, have no friends nearby, exist in an exhausting whirl of after school activities and can't even begin to imagine an other sort of existence. Oh and naturally they believe going to university is just something that'll happen, as is becoming a professional x,y or z. Personally I want a kid who knows what to do when they're bored and can have the gumption to find what they want to do rather than have it handed to them on a plate.

I haven't read all your answers but I read your original question.

If you can afford private school and you find one where your child is suited to the environment and teaching style, and you dont' have to travel far to get to it, then I would say go for it.

Equally if you can't find a private school that you believe she will be happy going to, send her to a state school if you think she'd be more comfortable there.

But I would try private if you can afford it. The difference in the long run? STATISTICALLY More kids from private schools go to Oxford and Cambridge adn if you / she wants to go there as end game to education, you'll have a better chance.

Message withdrawn

From what I can see there are various groups within my DCs school. There is the sporty group - a hardcore of around 7/8 children who get into most of the teams. There is the musical group - who do the various choirs and choral groups and orchestra - a hardcore element there too. Ditto acting and public/verse speaking competitions. But the vast majority actually don't make full use of the extra-curricular thingies and there's absolutely no need or pressure to. It's there if you want it though - all on tap.

I suppose it depends what you think schooling is about and what you want for your child- if school is about getting the right qualifications/achievements and networks then there is no doubt that statistically the results from private schools are better. And before anyone shouts I know that lots and lots of state school kids get great grades etc?. BUT in my humble opinion you are doing your kids a great disservice if you think that is all that learning is about. School is about so much more, social skills, peer relations, understanding diversity etc etc. FWIW I went to state and private and over my dead body would I send my kids to private school- it?s a completely unrealistic representation of society because every kid there will have parents with an income or means to send them there (apart form the 4 scholarship kids). And in the long run I want my kids to be happy- I?ll repeat that- happy?. And I am bloody sure that whether they are a lawyer, management consultant cabinet maker or nursery nurse (or a thousand other occupations) will not be the deciding factor in how happy they are. Far too many of the people I know who went to private school had distant relationships with their parents and hugely skewed views on the world. The argument about how brilliant it is that private schools provide such great music sport etc is interesting- if you send your kids to state school and then spend evening weekends taking them to clubs activities then that time is valuable time that you and your child spend together- chatting in the car on the way to netball etc (or rowing- who gives a shit- you?re still having a relationship).

I don't think it is worth it as long as there is an average or better school nearby. I believe diversity is very important.

My three DC go to a bog standard local state primary. They can choose to learn the following instruments(during school hours) violin, cello, viola, drums, trumpet, guitar. There are free clubs available after school every day: they vary but at the moment consist of: Italian, French, Latin, Gymnastics, Art, Construction, Choir, Orchestra, School Magazine, Cookery, Science, Recorders, Football, Moviemaker, Basketball, Dance, Wildlife. All these are run by teachers, teaching assistants and parents who give up their free time.
It does irritate me when people make the assumption that private schools automatically provide greater opportunities to take part in extracurricular activities. I can't think of a single thing my children would like to do that I can't arrange for them either through their school or within a few minutes walk of it.

Totally depends on your local state school.

If your local state school has a GCSE pass rate of 32% (when the national average is 52%) and has a serious bullying problem that is now entering the second generation and is so bad that even the teachers won't send their own children to the school, it may explain why parents like myself make a bee-line for the independent sector.

However, if you are in the enviable position of living within the catchment area of an excellent state school which offer all the benefits of extra-curriculum activities - since the pupils haven't vandalised the facilities at the first opportunity - then go for the state school.

My parents are teachers in private schools. I went to state schools because my parents are girt lefties (despite their jobs - ha!) and the state schools where I grew up were very decent.

I think for primary, and certainly infants, the state schools are much of a muchness and definitely the best option.

The secondary option depends on the state alternatives where you live - and the child. Some private schools cater very well for children with sn at either end of the scale - very gifted and talented or with learning difficulties. Class sizes are smaller, and extracurricular activities for specific talents are often better catered for - and I don't mean just having music lessons or sports coaching, but playing sports in high standard teams or having the opportunity to join very good orchestras.

In your situation (if money were not an obastacle), I'd send my child to the local state school and watch how they get on. If they were getting on well in state school (socially as well as academically), I'd send them to the local secondary where they'd get more awareness of the world around them and be more a part of the local community. But if they showed real promise in a specific area or had a specific learning difficulty such as chronic dyslexia, then I'd give serious thought to going private.

If there isn't a decent secondary (which there isn't where I currently live being in one of the worst LEAs in England), I'd have to weigh up the cost of moving with the cost of school fees.

oops, don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that mature students are often the most committed, motivated and enthusiastic of all students. And I would like to see more of them. My point is (I'll see if I can find a link) that they're also among the most likely to drop out of university largely because of financial and other commitments.

As I said it's an awful lot harder living without money and getting into debt when you're in your 30s than it is in your late teens and you're much more likely to have dependants.

It must be very difficult to weigh up the advantages of going to university against the debt and likelihood of being less able to deal with family responsibilities. The potential financial advantages after graduation (greater earning power) would be less the older you are too IYSWIM.

Certainly, I don't think I could go to university now for 3 years spending savings on tuition fees and not earning anything durng this time (and then add on a year for a PGCE) purely because of the burden this would place on my family.

Now I'm not saying that students shouldn't go to university when they're mature. Very far from it but IMHO its much more sensible to go when you're young where possible. When you can live more cheaply, have fewer responsibilities, have the rest of your lifetime to reap the financial advantages of being a graduate and pay off the debt in good time to start thinking about saving for retirement.

Of course, you can be happy without money but it's a hell of a lot harder especially as you get older and as I've said you also have the happiness of dependants to consider.