Do you think private schools give your children a advantage in life ?

[mistybear]

I am thinking of going back to work full time so I can send my dd to a private secondary school. My husband and I keep going around in circles of whether or not there is any advantage to a private education. We are not rich hence having to work full time to afford it and this is one of the questions, will having parents that are not that well off be a massive problem being at private school, we are not in London and the area we live in is not massively affluent. One of the reasons I keep thinking about it is that the people I have as friends and some of my family that have been privately educated are doing well and more importantly doing a job they wanted to do. My dd is hardworking and has already achieved her leaving school targets even though she is in year five, the state secondary schools around us are not the best but a couple are not too bad educational wise but all of them do not have clubs and sports that the private school has. She loves her violin, science and space also her ponies and she loves her warhammer !! she is also a only child x

Where did I say they are doing "everything"? Don't put words into my post that aren't there.

From my experience they do what they can.

I went to a minor, non-selective private school on a scholarship and thence to Cambridge.

I hardly ever see or speak to anyone from my school days and don't have much idea how they are doing. My university friends I am much more in touch with and some of them would be very, very useful for networking. Lots of people in high places. Makes me smile a bit when someone in my year comes on the TV or radio and I can recall them throwing up after some sweaty, student 'bop'

My university friends come from a mix of backgrounds from bog standard comp to famous public schools and everything in between. There is no difference in how they have done in life now. So I guess it was university that made a difference not school. Maybe it was harder to get there not having special tuition etc but to me it wasn't a great worry. I took a punt and got lucky. I would have been happy somewhere else too.

The main thing that puts me off private education for my DC (apart from not being able to afford it) is the insane pressure. I read some of these threads about people trying to get in, going for interviews, doing exams and I feel so sorry for the poor DC at having that expectation piled on them. I naively thought you paid your money and that was that!

A dear friend of mine recently took her 2yr old DD for an 'interview' for the nursery of the selective private school locally. This included an IQ test. I bit my lip hard but I can't believe this is good to be selected and tested at 2. Even if she gets in they reserve the right to throw her out at any point if she is 'not making sufficient progress'. I can barely imagine what that would do to a child to be labelled not good enough and rejected.

That's a long winded way of saying save your money!

How would you conduct an IQ test on a 2 year old?

I am really not too sure.

Friend was quite concerned that her DD would wet herself which would apparently definitely not be a good thing

I don't get it..All that espouse how great a state education is should be rathered pleased with those of us who send our children private. This frees up more places for those children that don't have a choice.

What if I wasted all my money on a private education for my children. Does that remotely affect those who haven't.

The argument is that it isn't fair. life is far from fair. Then we have the argument that state schools are no worse than private. So send your children there. That is your choice. We privately educate our children and that is our choice.

I am quite happy if the local school outstripped private schools in every aspect. That means those who have chosen private have helped others to get into that outstanding comprehensive. I do think those that can afford to pay should do so.

Sorry, I did misquote you.

But I don't actually see how "what they can" differs from "everything they can" to be honest.

However, I would still be interested to see how they are doing "what they can to broaden their intake."

kenlee, the point is that Britain is still a deeply class driven society. Those born to privilege draw more privilege to them as they go through life, and private education helps to perpetuate this. There are more Etonians than women in the current cabinet, for example. And they situation will probably not change much should Labour win the next election.

The same applies to law firms, big business and the media world. Even fields like acting are dominated by the "top" private schools.

And the "make state schools better then" line is a red herring. Most of the 7% who use the private sector would not send their child to a state school whatever it was like. And from that 7% comes the tiny fraction of a % who run the country!

Imagine the scene: the great and good of Winchester College shimmying into the worst rated school in every LEA in the land, pinpointing the hungriest looking child in this year 8 class, or the one holding a pen upside down in that, bundling them into a vehicle, threatening the parents with SS if they dare to object.

That's probably the ultimate in "broadening intake." Not sure how well it would work...

I don't believe for one minute that the sort of people who send their children to private schools on the basis that state schools are inadequate are also the sort of people who would agree to the huge increase in taxation which would be required to bring the average spend per head on state educated children to the equivalent currently spent on privately educated kids.

So called "leading" private schools are doing the opposite of broadening their intakes. See eg the threads on KCS, Alleyns and SPGS. The middle has been squeezed out.

Cameron is the only Etonian in the Cabinet. Three women (May, Greening, Morgan).

But hak we surely don't want to improve state education to draw the 7% into the fold ( though undoubtedly some would go)?

It needs to be done for the remaining 93%.

'Broadening their intake' often means 'giving bursary money' to people who are in the top half, possibly the top quarter of the uk income bracket.

I think the real test would be - what percentage of privately educated children come from households receiving tax credits and housing benefits.

I agree, word. But if we're talking about privilege, the point is that regardless of the quality of state education, the movers and shakers would still inhabit their private bunkers..........

Hak I have already explained how broaden their intake in my post.

There is also a clear difference between "do what they can" which suggests limitations and "everything". I am not going to patronise you by explaining the obvious difference.

On the issue of intake I can only speak from personal experience. Without the help of the school I would never have had access to the education afforded to me. My parents simply couldn't afford it.

I now donate money to my old school, as does my husband to his, by direct debit. The donations are to help children from similar backgrounds to ours to have access to the independent sector in the way that we did.

My own children now attend a private prep that offers one full scholarship a year which is means tested. They can't help everyone but from personal experience they do what they can. We are after all talking about a small percentage of the schools in the country.

Judging by the groups of parents at my girls private school they are definitely not rich.Several have been given burseries.These burseries are not huge and the parents are making considerable self sacrifices to send their girls there.
Certain sectors of the population believe in getting the very best education and are prepared to pay for this.
So discount this idea that only the rich educate their children privately.This is definitely not the case in rural middle England.

For the avoidance of doubt "children from similar backgrounds" in my case were parents on limited income and housing benefit.

I'm sorry to break your middle class stereotype of the type of child that gets a scholarship. Certainly in my case we were far from being middle class or in the "top quarter".

"So discount this idea that only the rich educate their children privately.This is definitely not the case in rural middle England."

1. They are rich compared to the majority of the population.
2. Giving up holidays, driving old cars and not shopping at Waitrose are not "sacrifices"
3. "Rich" and "privileged" are not synonyms.

"think the real test would be - what percentage of privately educated children come from household's recieving tax credits and housing benefits"

I would be prepared to hazard a guess....

So Its not about how good the school is academically or in any other aspect. It is rather more to do with we don't have so you shouldn't have. If that is the correct take on the matter.

However, the rich will always be rich and will always be in power. Despite sending them all to state schools. Yes a few of us plebs maybe found on the same play ground but they will have their social group and the poor will have theirs.

Wouldn't it be far better to concentrate on creating a good strong middle class with good state education rather than worry about the 7 %? Therefore upwards mobility could be a real possibility for the poor.

"I now donate money to my old school, as does my husband to his, by direct debit. The donations are to help children from similar backgrounds to ours to have access to the independent sector in the way that we did."

Could you tell us more about the children who get the help? How many? What sort of backgrounds?

All you can do is research the schools that are realistically open to your child geographically and then take a decision as to which you prefer. It may not be the most expensive one!

In the past year I have visited and considered schools that cost between €0 and €30,000 per year (day fees...). My preferred options (two of them) cost €3/4,000 a year each.

All I can tell you (at least for the school I was as at) is that it is means tested and that it was set up to replace the assisted places scheme when this was abolished by Tony Blair.

This might help put into perspective what the schools I know of are trying to replicate with their scholarships:

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/special-report-workingclass-pupils-went-to-private-schools-under-margaret-thatchers-abolished-assisted-places-scheme--how-did-they-get-on-8857345.html

Right off to a meeting. Thanks for the early morning discussion. I just hope that people can see that independent schools do try and help people like me and they did.

I will always be grateful to them for that.

Gosh! If I were donating money to a school I would want to make damn sure that it was going to where I wanted it to go!