Cannot decide if we want our son to attend a private school or not

[Londonhoneycake]

I am 43 and attended a state school, although it was in a fairly middle-class, well-off area. My husband is 47 and went to a private school. We have two boys, aged 9 and 7, and we have started looking ahead at secondary schools for our eldest. We’ve attended open days and open mornings and met with heads of schools, but we’re still unsure whether to send him to a state school or go down the private route.

We aren’t wealthy. We could afford private school fees, but only just, and because of that my husband’s parents have offered to help with the costs. I’m not sure how I feel about that, whereas my husband is very much in favour of it.

I’d really like to hear from parents who weren’t completely sure either. We have good state schools nearby, some within walking distance, and I feel our children would benefit from attending a “normal” local school. My husband strongly wants them to go to a private school, but I’m conflicted because I disapprove of a system that reinforces inequality and gives children advantages purely based on their parents’ or guardians’ wealth.

I want our children to be educated alongside the majority. I also work closely with an education think tank, much of which focuses on strengthening state education, so it would feel quite hypocritical to send my children to private school given the values that underpin my work.

of course I don’t see rich people as the enemy. If ds makes “rich” friends later in life that’s totally fine.

As a child/teenager I think it’s more valuable for (my) kids to meet people from as broad a spectrum of society if possible, and to have local friends within walking distance. And wouldn’t want them to feel jealous of friends that have far fancier clothes and holidays. As a family we don’t fit into the wealthy/posh category at all.

The simple fact is that there are good and bad schools in both the state and private sector. The decision will largely depend on what is available to you locally. The money is sorted for you and you have therefore got freedom of choice, so you just need to look round and find the best fit for your child.

You disapprove of a system that reinforces inequality and gives children advantages based on their parents... But you grew up in middle-class environment, in a well off area, and now work at an education think tank (ie you are quite distanced from any kind of essential or key worker job)? And let's not forget you live in a sufficiently 'rich' nation that already gives you massive privileges over much of the globe, just in case you wanted to look beyond the narrow confines of your context.

A lot of judgement, but at the level of a post, sounds like champagne socialism at its worst. You don't seem to be disputing the benefits of private school, so perhaps the question is why should your biases mean your children are disadvantaged?

I don't think it is as simple as private vs state unless your decision is solely based on principle.

There is a huge range of quality in state schools and an equally huge range of quality in private schools. A school is not better simply because it is private.

That said, if you have the opportunity to choose between a good state school and a good private school, I would choose the private school option if you can afford it. In my personal experience a good private school education provides support for your child that goes beyond GCSEs and A-levels, and sets them up with additional experiences, skills and confidence that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.

This is not to say that people who went to state school cannot do equally well or better in life - of course they can - but I don't see why you would deny your children every opportunity that you can afford to give them.

It means nothing. You asked AI a question. Then copy/pasted on here as if it were an actual piece of peer-reviewed research. Quote some actual published studies if you want to make a point, not some made up AI summary.

A pp (not me) asked AI a question, which replied that
"Privately educated individuals in the UK generally earn significantly more than their state-educated peers, with studies showing a substantial salary premium that widens over time, even when controlling for university, subject, and job"

You dismissed it, claiming that the AI question should be re-phrased to exclude 90-95% of state students, and compare only the outcomes for the most academic 5-10% of state students to the whole private cohort.

You mentioned cohort size (only 7% educated privately), but I assumed it was obvious that it's not necessary to have the same cohort size. That doesn't need explaining, does it? If everything else was equal, you'd expect the same spread of earnings outcomes - proportionally - even though there would more individuals at every income level who were educated in state.

I thought that was obvious and that your objection is to the difference in cohort spread of ability

The difficulty in comparing state and private outcomes is that private education is self-selecting, and requires material/career success in the parents... which correlates to parental ability... and IQ is heritable... so there's a different spread of abilities in the private cohort than in the state cohort. So when you compare outcomes, you need to be careful to make sure you're comparing the outcome for children coming from private against the outcome for equivalent ability children coming from state.

I pointed out that the AI answer controls for university, subject and job - so it's already comparing people with equivalent A levels (assuming that universities make offers equitably based on A level grades). That makes the comparison fair despite different ability across the respective cohorts

Ie when you group people people together who you would expect to have the same earnings based on their University degree and job (and by extension, equivalent A levels)... but then you split that out again by private/state... there is a big enough difference that you can conclude that education sector does change lifetime earnings outcomes.

Now I have no idea whether the data the AI based it's answers on is correct, whether the AI has hallucinated a wrong answer from correct underlying studies, or even whether the pp genuinely got such an AI answer or just made it up for fun.

My point is that based on that answer, your request to "compare private school pupils outcomes against the top 5 or 10% of state school pupils (as defined by GCSE/A level grades)." is unnecessary. In fact, it would give a less accurate result, since it assumes that the whole private school cohort matches the ability of the top 5-10% in state school. Which is an assumption, not based on anything.

You didn’t seem to understand my comment about the AI answer "controlling for university, subject, and job" so I gave more detail. You still don't seem to understand it, but I'm not sure how else to explain.

You need to pay attention to phrases like "controlling for" - and make sure you really understand how people use underlying data to reach meaningful conclusions - if you want to understand the conclusions you read about.

It’s ridiculous comparing. The private school children are likely 90% all from wealthy supportive of education families. Even in a decent state school about a third won’t be more in the deprived school my sister taught in. So direct comparison is meaningless.

It’s very subjective. That said my teen is absolutely thriving in her state 6th form was saying last night how happy she is - tiny classes inspirational teachers lovely other kids. Genuinely don’t get what we’re missing out on.

I can see how much you like AI...

So we are in a similar situation - my eldest is 8 (in year 4) and my youngest 5 (in year 1) and we have been trying to make this decision.

I went to a private senior school as my parents didn't like the state school options available to me and felt I would do better at private. My husband is from a different area with excellent state schools and nobody really went private unless they were super wealthy, and those individuals have tended to do worse in life than my husband and his friends. So I started this thinking private and he was very much state.

Neither of us are morally opposed to private- I understand the arguments against in an ideal world, but I am very much a realist. This is particularly the case when it comes to deciding what is best for my children, to me, we need to make decisions based on the world we live in, not one we might like to live in and I wouldn't compromise my children's future for some ideal that does not exist.

However, private school for two children is a considerable commitment - I wouldn't send one without knowing I could afford to extend the opportunity to the other. We have calculated that with 5% fee increases every year, school bus and lunches will cost about £400k up to end of GCSEs for both our children. This does not include clubs, trips or exam fees, which tend to be charged extra.

So before deciding to make that commitment, we went on a complete tour of private and state schools around us in the Autumn and are not happy with any of the state schools near us.

I should add that we are on the edge of a grammar area so some children do go over the boarder to grammars or one of the two very competitive (no catchment) grammars near us. I'm not sure these woudl suit my daughter so we were only focused on non selective states. Other then one, none of the non selective states are failing schools. They are all 'ok' and have average results, but we just didn't feel they were right for my daughter - she does ok acedimically but is dyslexic and far more into extra curricular activities / art etc.

We found one state school we liked, but we would have to move. Unfortunatley this was not somwhere my husband wants to move to (although I very happily would live in the area and was happy with the school).

So ironically me being more pro private would have chosen to move and send them to the state school that we could see my daughter at, but my husband thinks moving for an ok school when he has now seen how much more would be on offer in private is ridiculous.

So, we are going private. What I would say is that we have made this decision very much with our daughter in mind and not based on any ideals or moral view. Our top choice of private school has excellent provision to support her dyslexia and outstanding facilities to nurture her sporting and art interests.

If I had a different child, I would no doubt make a different decision (for example maybe I would have done grammar) and indeed I may well choose a different option for my son, who is only 5. But before choosing for my daughter I needed to know we could afford to do the same for him.

At secondary they don’t necessarily need to go to the same school - it’s different from primary where you have to take them everyday.. Have seen parents set on a particular school for one child which really isn’t right for a sibling come to this realisation.

Not sure if that was in reply to my post, but if you read to the end that’s sort of my point - but I equally wouldn’t send one child private without knowing I had the means for the others in case it was right for them

Wrong thread..

I think you have to try and set aside your principles and think about best school for each child and you have to compare school against school not sector against sector. There are some private schools I absolutely wouldn’t pay for over some state schools but there are plenty of private schools that offer something over and above a large number of states. The 7% is more of a distortion- the number rises the older the kids are and different counties have quite different representation.

I moved one of my children from state to private prep and the difference has been larger than I anticipated. One of the biggest has been behaviour in that it just doesn’t feature in any conversations because it is a complete non issue. In contrast my other child is hyper aware of behaviour management policies in her state. Class sizes do matter- I’m seeing 18 v 32 for my own children. It wasn’t my plan to move at the point I did but it has firmed up my desire to send both private for secondary.

I want our children to be educated alongside the majority. I also work closely with an education think tank, much of which focuses on strengthening state education, so it would feel quite hypocritical to send my children to private school given the values that underpin my work

There is nothing noble in thinking this way.

You can improve education children in general AND do the best for your own children (whatever type of school that may be).
The fact that there are think tanks that are trying to strengthen state education shows that there are issues with it so I am not sure what you are trying to prove by sending your child to a “state” school in case you lose face because of your job. I am friends with a few state school teachers who send their children to private school but also know of one private school teacher that sends their child to a state school.

Of course, there are some amazing state schools (and some poor private) but clearly the state education is not broadly excellent across the board. If you are in the catchment area of a great state school that suits your son then strongly consider using it.

The big question, as you have mentioned, is affordability and the implications of grandparents paying fees (many do and it doesn’t necessarily mean that there are strings attached but important to consider)

If you're being offered help with the fees and if the private school is actually a good one, you'd be mad not to imo. Standards in the state sector are shockingly low but hyped up eith educational Newspeak.

You also have to deal with idiotic uniform/attendance rules, a refusal to expel kids who shouldn't be anywhere near a school, and the results of dysfunctional lazy parenting.

State education, overcrowding and a severe lack of valid local state options has crushed the spirit of my youngest child, who's now having to be homeschooled through GCSEs and am paying for tutors I can ill afford.

You’re living in the past! Those days are over….

You have a minimum of 3 more years of Lucy Powell and the state educated secondary government in power (over the ‘academics’ ‘independents’ most of whom cannot afford their kids independent school fees and beg for bursaries *which by the way should all be means tested)

Those in outstanding/good state holding the valuable placements all the independent school families are fighting for before….. 2026/7 Hilarious shift of power!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/21/new-education-secretary-backed-more-taxes-on-private-school/

Your posts don't make much sense @AntediluvianViews

Are you saying that because we have 3 more years of Labour ahead of us, that will somehow make a difference to the relative quality of state vs private education?

I genuinely wish I could believe that Labour were going to improve state schools, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that - if anything, the opposite.

You have a minimum of 3 more years of ... the state educated secondary government in power

Andy Burnham's cabinet is 72% state school educated and 24% private educated. <shrug>

(they seem unsure about Anneliese
Midgley - who is the remaining 4%)

www.suttontrust.com/our-research/sutton-trust-cabinet-analysis-2026/

No idea what the next part of your post is saying. Maybe try again.

And your second post also makes no sense. Maybe some gloating about children who have had to leave private schools not getting good state places?? Erm, OK?

Of course it makes sense.

You keep AI quoting the value of independent school yet, the very people in power for the next 3 full years are state educated.

Any parent of middle class background who opted a great local state over this shambles “private” education must be feeling very pleased with themselves.

The diluted provision at private school costing a fortune on par with the outstanding state school they’re getting for free.

One can only imagine the quality family time, investments, enrichment opportunities said families have available to invest in their children.

OK, that was a more readable post.

None of my posts are AI generated - I like writing. If you read again, you can see that I was explaining someone else's reply (which they are open came from an AI answer).

Lots of people seem unable to understand how you can look at statistics in a nuanced way to control for different cohorts in private and state - so that's what I explained. Not sure whether you bothered to read it / understood it since it was admittedly quite long.

You're still not being clear about the relevance of the people in power for the next 3 years being state educated. (And actually, they're not - as I pointed out, Burnham's cabinet is disproportionately privately educated) I certainly don't aspire to my DD going into politics, do you?

I'm very glad for any parent who is happy with their school choice. Private certainly isn't the only good option.

Any investment parents make in their children is a good thing: both for the children and the country.

Eg the family time, investments, enrichment opportunities you mention. Or private school. All these things benefit the UK's future, by making more capable future citizens (As private parents have repeatedly pointed out)

My DD's school certainly isn't a shambles, or diluted provision. I'm confident that it is helping her to become the best possible version of herself, and that will help her throughout her life, whatever she ends up doing.

It's been a while since I read this thread, but I'm pretty sure that's borne out in outcomes - which is what is mentioned earlier in the thread.

Great that you're happy with your choices too. No real need for nasty gloating about what this government will do to harm children next.

What I have noticed with mumsnet is the sheer volume of independent school staff keyboard warriors active on here.

I clearly remember pre VAT all of the comments that families who didn’t want to pay “should just leave” pay the VAT don’t question staff perks or non means tested bursaries and just leave.

It seems 40,000 did just that.

The posts seem quieter. When someone posts as passionately as you do I learned it was often an individual who turned out to have a vested interest. Staff fee reductions, hardship support, wanting to boost the external reputation.

I agree that in raising children it is very much each to their own. Ultimately mental and physical health are the paramount goals.

My vested interest is that my DD is at private school. I'm not a teacher, have no bursary or hardship support - just a normal parent.

I'm certainly not unusual in my strength of feeling about this policy - but I guess I was more naive than others in my willingness to talk about it and my hope that if I could explain the sheer stupidity and destructiveness of Labour's policy, people might understand.

Not very much point in continuing to post about it. I'll point out the harms we predicted as they materialise, and wait for Labour to be kicked out and the policy to change. A lot of destruction will have happened by then though.

Any parent of middle class background who opted a great local state over this shambles “private” education must be feeling very pleased with themselves.

What fraction of middle class parents have the option of a great local state? Many who decide to make the tradeoffs to pay for private education do so because they don't have that option.

My sons are and at a private primary and the small classes suit both their SEN support. What I don't think has been mentioned is the support for 2 x working parents. Private schools typically have provision until 5 or 6pm depending on clubs and after-school care (some you pay for separately). It's a long day but otherwise some families have nannies at home. We needed a one-stop shop so they get a wide range of activities in one place. If you are free to run them around to extra drama and sports clubs in the afternoons that would be one option for State Schools, as suggested. I was the recipient of a private school education partly sponsored by grandparents and that did cause family issues at times. Depends on your in-laws and if they try to attach 'conditions' or if it is a gift. Finally - we have chosen a 'hybrid' State School which is fee-paying for an extended day but much cheaper than an independent secondary. Involved a house and county move to be in catchment area though but my eldest would not have fared well under 11+ pressure. I think this may has lessened now as private schools are battling for numbers.