So have your private school fees been worth it?

[jeanne16]

Just that exactly? Both my DCs have been through private London schools all the way through from Reception to 6th Form and although they have both done very well ( eldest now at Cambridge, younger about to go to very good RG), I can't help wondering if it has been worth the money.

I am currently wondering if we could have done things differently. We have spent an enormous amount of money on school fees that could perhaps have gone on other things. Could we have tried harder to get them into decent state schools, particularly at primary level?

Your thoughts?

PippyPoppy I guess average fees in London must be somewhere around £18k. The best known academic schools charge well over £20k.

It's the annual increases that are really frightening. They bear no relation to salary increases. St Paul's Girls' School holds the record with 37% in 5 years.

On other threads, we have been told that doesn't matter because you can always pay them out of your bonuses or your investments. The message is these schools are not for parents who have joined professions which don't pay bonuses or which require years of student debt (like medicine). Basically, you have to be rich, preferably from birth.

There are some honourable exceptions in London, eg the GDST schools which have deliberately kept fee increases reasonable.

And there are some excellent state schools, including 6th forms. More and more professionals are voting with their feet.

Kenlee - I agree accent can be important in some fields (like mine) and I have a pretty cut glass accent.

I went to the roughest of rough state comp's in south wales.

Accent came free courtesy of my mother - no private schooling necessary.

I think Private schools are worth every penny IF the children are going to a good one. Just like all schools there are good and bad in the private sector too. It is not 'just' the education aspect, but how they speak, their confidence and grace, and the incredible opportunities both in terms of sports, the arts, academically and the freedom you have as a parent to choose the right school for your child, is priceless.

I don't think a larger house, more holidays or nice cars can replace a child's education it is the corner stone of their future.

Kewcumber it is so sadly true that it is the case. I myself like to hear different accents in the office. The Scottish highlands accent is rather nice on the ears.

As for fees we accept that they have to be paid. I do think short breaks are just as important to a child's education than just books. A big house and flash car I can do without.

As kewcumber mentions accent is a product of upbringing not schooling, and most people's accents are very similar to their parents. My middle class state school friends sound just the same as the private school ones. The so called private school domination of sports is a bit overstated since apart from cricket (where according to DH very few make a decent living anyway) these tend to be "Olympic" type sports such as rowing, sailing,shooting, equestrian events etc which are neither universally popular nor remunerative whereas there must be countless professional state school football players for every one Frank Lampard (ex Chelsea star privately educated). Indeed my DD has played in far more school teams/matches at her state primary school than friends daughters who are at London preps. The one area that does seem to be private school dominated is the arts/media, although this is partly because personal contacts/family background help more in getting a job/role/break in these fields rather than pure talent.However if you want your DC to be a truly gifted at an early stage IMO you would normally be much better off sending them for private lessons outside school (junior Royal College of Music/Guildhall/acting lessons/theatre groups etc) than relying on the school's music/drama department . What private schools provide is exposure to drama/music etc and it is fairly easy for state school parents to provide even better exposure to these fields with a little bit of effort using a small part of the fortune saved on fees.

I think good Education is very important to a child. Be it a state school or a private school, as long as it is a good school. Like the state one half an hour drive away from us, it is outstanding, I think my children would have a good education if they can get in. With some afterschool club, the education received can match a good private school. So if I have that choice, then private school is not worth it.

However, we can't get in, the one we got is not a very good one. So we have to pay to send DS to a nearby private school. Compare to this not very good state school, I think the fee paid is worth it.

neuroticnicky - "the so called private school domination of sport" hahahahaha

I think you need to research this properly. Football is an anomaly. I give you:

Cricket
Rugby
Tennis
Table tennis
Hockey
Etc etc see link below

www.theguardian.com/education/2012/aug/13/olympics-2012-gb-medallists-private-schooling

Whilst the OP must do as she sees fit regarding schools, let's not be disingenuous.

Privately schooled pupils are disproportionately represented on the most competitive courses at the most selective universities and there after are hugely over represented in many industries from law, medicine, politics, finance, science, academia, media and board level business.

Let's not pretend any of this isn't an issue and anyone can just do whatever they want in life regardless of education, wealth or background.

Is it disproportionate, though? Most independent schools are selective, most State schools aren't. If you are quite good and have money you can get into independents. If you are staggeringly good - let's say potential Oxbridge or Olympic standard - then you can get into an independent despite, despite lack of money, on a scholarship.
Why is anyone surprised that private schools are 'disproportionally' represented at the top - private schools seek to hoover up precisely these pupils.

senua whilst private schools do offer bursaries there really aren't that many.

Certainly not enough that every Oxbridge potential or international lacrosse player can be accommodated. There must be plenty of these DC in the state system ( which usually is selective by sixth form).

Similarly not every child in the private school system is a high flier.

But they are over represented. No two ways.

Could be the school. Could be the parents. Could be wealth. Could be genes. Probably a slippery mixture of all the above.

Are "most independents selective"? I thought a few were, not most. Certainly round here, it's generally accepted that the independents are stuffed mainly with children that failed the 11+.

TheoreticalOrder- re sports the point I was making was that most of the Olympic medals won by former private school pupils recently are in sports which are middle class and essentially amateur such as rowing, shooting, hockey, showjumping , dressage etc which will never have mass appeal. As more and more of these minority sports are included in the Olympics the proportion could even increase. However in the main “proper” Olympic sports such as athletics there probably hasn’t been a decent private school athlete since Roger Bannister! As regards the sports you cite cricket is in decline, rugby union (far too dangerous anyway) may be private school but rugby league is state, tennis is an upper middle class sport and yet the UK has only produced one decent player in our lifetime (Andy Murray who is state educated) and table tennis is dominated by state schools as any glance at the national schools competitions will show. Furthermore in London at least many state schools have much better sports facilities than some of the private schools (particularly the smaller girls’private schools). Indeed many of the London prep schools don’t even have a playground. I just think this private school sports thing is overstated ; by the time they reach the sixth form most private school pupils are not really interested in sport (I certainly wasn’t!) unless they are stuck in a boarding school in the country with nothing else to do.

I grant you that not every Oxbridge potential will get a bursary. As we know, there are plenty more 'potentials' than 'accepteds'.
But the top, top high-fliers - the sort that will come top in the selection test any day of the week, the sort that will look good on the school's alumnus list, the sort that will get public attention - they get hoovered. As extreme examples off the top of my head I give you Tom Daley and Malala Yousafzai.

Sorry senua but you are talking about a handful of outliers.

The vast majority of children at private school are not in that category. And yet they are over represented in the most selective universities. Or to put it another way, state schooled DC are under represented.

If that is not the case then why do Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE et al spend so much time and money and effort trying to widen participation?

And after university the world of work is even worse. Some industries are absurdly scewed and funnily enough these industries tend to be the ones that pay the most, have the most status and effect us all at a macro level.

Given that we are now in the throes of a Tory government for five years and most likely ten, do we think this situation is likely to get better?

As kewcumber mentions accent is a product of upbringing not schooling, and most people's accents are very similar to their parent

To be fair my mother does buck that trend... she was the daughter of a caretaker and a school cleaner from a council estate in Brighton and got a 100% scholarship to a private school - she changed her accent in order to survive.

Children rarely have their parents' accent actually. They pick up the accent of where they live and go to school.

TheWordFactory - however, that isn't always the case. I resolutely failed to pick up the accent of my peers and was always told I sounded posh. It wasn't remotely deliberate on my part - maybe I just spent too much of my childhood listening to Radio 4. People always assumed my father, who was the state educated son of a bus driver, was privately educated, because of his accent and choice of career. People like to make assumptions about peoples' background, I've found. Also, if you have posh-sounding parents at home, you are more likely to be able to affect the accent when required, even if you do speak like everyone around you the rest of the time...

I accept that children's accents are determined by their environment (of which parents form only part) and indeed have friends whose accents are very different from their parents although this is generally where the parents are foreign (eg Asian or Caribbean) and the children are second generation. I suppose the point I was making is that I don't know any English middle class children who have changed their accent after attending state school since once ingrained it is not that easy to change an accent. Similarly in my day many boys at London private schools used to adopt a mockney accent only to lose it very quickly/revert to type once they got to uni.

(apologies for the apostrophe SPaG test failure with people... )

My children sound like Elizabeth Hurley, it's bizarre since they go to a school with over half FSM. My accent is pretty RP, but theirs is even posher.

All the middle-class children I know have the same sort of posho London accent, doesn't matter which school they've gone to from Westminster to inner city.

My son has friends from primary school who were brighter than him but have not done as well at GCSE and AS level at the comprehensive because there doesn't seem to be the same culture of it being cool to work hard as there is at my son's private school.

there doesn't seem to be the same culture of it being cool to work hard

Actually it seems that it's cool NOT to work hard :(
Which is certainly one of the things that worries me a lot.

DD's private school is non selective (academically) and the results they get from the girls are quite brilliant.

If you had a girl with low/middle ability, you'd sell a kidney for a place.

There's a lot of stuff written about the importance of accents but I'm unconvinced of the need for elocution lessons although Im very keen to clear pronouciation. I perceive I speak like any other MC women walking down the road although much to my horror a friends recently commented that I have the poshest accent she's ever heard, I sound like a female version of Brian Sewell (God help us), but which ever way I speak I do think it can make some people wary of you, and they are making incorrect assumptions about the sort of person you are, the commonest is that a "posh" accent means you highly intelligent (which I'm not), people automatically assume you're exceedingly wealthy (I'm not), a snob and therefore unfriendly (I'm not a snob and I'm a very friendly person by nature) and also completely out of touch with the concerns and dreams of certainly the average man walking down the street and clueless about those on the bottom of the pile my work means I know a lot about them.
It is possible to dispel these assumptions but it's sad that they are being made in the first place and I worry that it does create a barrier between myself and some other when I first meet them.

Speaking clearly, confidently and articulately are good attributes but having a 'posh' or not accent really shouldn't matter at all. The UK has some fabulous accents some better than others it would be such a shame if people felt they had to stifle them to pander to 'accent' prejudice.

It's hard not to make assumptions based on accent but anyone with any sense knows it doesn't mean anything.