Private Boarding vs. Day School vs. Grammar

[Breeze67]

As a parent of a Year 5 DD, I’m struggling to justify the premium of a private day school. My primary concern is the disruption and mixed academic abilities in comprehensive state schools, which is why a selective school—be it a grammar or an independent one—seems like a solid solution. There is so much praise for independent schools, but when you look at the time factor, it gets complicated: When you look at how little time kids are actually at school—only covering half the year (private schools have much longer holidays) and only 8 out of 24 hours in a school day—it is clear that the heavy lifting, the real character building, and extra learning still happen at home. If we parents are doing the bulk of the work, what are we actually paying the big fees for?
Despite the fancy surface, much of the day-to-day experience between a grammar and an indie is not significantly different. Whether it’s museum trips, sports days, or classroom activities, the core experience cannot be vastly different. Is a class of 20-plus kids in a private day school really that much better than 30 in a top grammar? Of course, a difference exists, but likely impacts less than 1/3 of the school time. So, if we look at the maths, it’s 1/3 (the advantage) of 1/3 (the school day duration) of 1/2 (the school year), which is only about 1/18 of the year's time! Are we paying a figure roughly equivalent to the UK average salary for what essentially amounts to a 1/18 difference in yearly education? I am shocked by the number.
This leads me to wonder: is boarding the only true exception? Personally, I will not do it because I just enjoy my kid's company every day. But logically, only full boarding offers a genuine holistic education. It is a 24/7 immersion into an academic and social community that a day school, by design, simply cannot touch.
So, if day schools aren't significantly better than grammars, and I’m unwilling to consider boarding, am I left with a compromise? Are we paying for a superior education, or just a different peer group?

I agree that grammar schools are more diverse than private schools. But I still think it is hard for a child to get in without a 'middle-class mindset.' I don’t mean just having middle class wealth/income. It is about valuing education, discipline, and being willing to spend time and effort on 11+ prep. For example, a parent who went to a good university but is currently unemployed and has zero wealth still has this 'middle-class mindset' if they guide their child, find free online resources, and support their learning. It is that 'academic-first' attitude that really matters. Many working-class families without this focus are often not prepared to put in the massive effort needed for the 11+.

Sorry who said "there are no schools with sets"? 🤔

It's very patronising to say that valuing education and discipline is a "middle-class mindset", as if working classes do not have these values.

In fact, in some areas it's exactly the other way round - Michaela is being viciously attacked by MC who cannot come to terms with the fact that working class families DO value education and very strict discipline.

I really am interested in seeing your evidence but the link you provided is to a blog which hasn't been updated since 2019 and I cannot find a specific report with either the 88% or 60% numbers. Would you be able to link to the specific papers with those numbers?

"While it eventually peaks at around 88% by the time students reach Year 11 (especially in Mathematics), the baseline survey found that roughly six in ten schools (approx. 60%) do not wait until upper years. Instead, they implement strict attainment sets during the autumn term of Year 7."

I don't know if that was a direct quote (if so, would you link to the document?) but the first half of the statement, which you chose not to bold, is clearly about math and I suspect that the portion you bolded also refers primarily to math.

I am not questioning the 88% number for math in Year 11. Indeed, my source indicates 89% in Year 10.

I would not question the "60% of schools use structured ability grouping right away in Year 7" statement if that refers to math. My source indicates 69% in Year 8.

But I would question the assertion of 60% in Year 7 if that is supposed to be for subjects outside of math. My source indicates that only 30% of students are set in English in Year 8, and only 27% of students are set in sciences in Year 8.

To summarize, I believe we agree that it is common for schools to set in math from Year 7 and it is extremely common for schools to set in math at GCSE.

Do we disagree about whether it is common for schools to set in any subjects other than math before GCSE?

Private schools teach to pass the exams, more than state schools. I’m not saying going to private isn’t better than state, but the GCSE results difference doesn’t show the full picture.

Quote from the national secondary school data published by Teacher Tapp (the primary organization tracking school logistics in the UK) in their report, "Organisation of classes in secondary schools":
"Maths has the highest levels of attainment grouping, increasing from 66% in Year 7 to 87% in Year 11. English and science show steady increases in grouping, starting at 37% and 31% respectively in Year 7 and rising to 63% for English and 73% for science by Year 11."

teachertapp.com/articles/organisation-of-classes-in-secondary-schools/?hl=en-GB#:~:text=Maths%20has%20the%20highest%20levels,for%20science%20by%20Year%2011.

There is a clear distinction between "very strict discipline" applied to average or struggling students in a comprehensive like Micheala Community School, and the self-imposed discipline required to strive for academic excellence as a top-performing primary student aiming for a grammar school. The former is often associated with working-class survival strategies, while the latter reflects a middle-class value system centered on climbing or maintaining one’s position on the social ladder.

The very experienced head teacher of my daughter’s former primary said “it’s the child, not the school.”
It’s well worth bearing in mind.
It’s probably easier to get into most private schools than the best selective grammars as well. Those schools are best for naturally gifted and studious children, not ones who have to be forced through additional tuition (though tuition is absolutely needed.)

I don't think you can say it. It is more complex. Not so black&WhiteThere are vast parts of the country where are no grammar schools at all. Or in Greater London, a population of 16 mln they have superselective like somebody mentioned 90 out of 3000 applying get in.
It means that middle class sends kids to state schools. Then there is location factor: house prices driven by good schools in that catchment area. And then you have grammar counties like Kent, Bucks etc. there are many grammars that are not super selective because there are many there and are just skimming entire cream of the local population like...40 percent- easier to get to. Attitudes vary there

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree.
State schools are exam factories because they need to jump through the ofsted hoops.

Private schools want to attract parents who can afford the fees so they also want to look good. Some private schools are less academically rigorous than others, but if they had a low GCSE pass rate then parents wouldn't pay to send their children there. Unless it is a school specifically for children with SEN or any other needs then they will still want academically able pupils.

I’ve worked in primary and secondary state schools.i find the statement that state school teachers don’t care whether pupils pass or fail really insulting. State school staff, however, have far bigger classes and many more groups to teach. Discipline may take up more of the day (not in all schools). Of course they care, partly because most teachers want the best for pupils or they wouldn’t still be teaching and they are very much monitored and judged on outcomes.

@Breeze67
The most obvious example would be buying a long term home.
You have done all the spreadsheets.
All the finances say you should buy house A as that would give you maximum returns, but in your bones you know you will be happier in House B.

I went to private school as the local secondaries were appalling. I really benefitted from the smaller class sizes and excellent pastoral care. My confidence was sky high.
I now live in an area with grammar schools, secondaries and excellent independents. My DC were lucky enough to get into grammar. They benefit from a motivated cohort and engaged parents. It's not for every child but mine seem happy.

We can't afford the £7k a term independent school although I have visited and the small class sizes do appear to deliver exceptional results as well as state of the art facilities.

If you are solely looking at spreadsheets for your decision making in this matter you will miss the bigger picture.

Just as with housing, is education a consumption good or an investment? I think it is both. And what is the big picture? Is it the fancy facilities or the inner strength? Is it carefree happiness or striving motivation? Yes, my spreadsheet is just one part of the puzzle, but it is very tangible and real. As people said, every school and every child is different. Thorough research into every specific school, combined with an understanding of the child's ability, personality, family situation and aspirations, will together form the big picture.

“it’s the child, not the school.”

People do not like my method of using spreadsheets to track school hours, but essentially, I am arguing that most of a child's success stems from their innate ability combined with their family background, which is reflected in the time spent. When we read a person's biography or Wikipedia page, it spends considerable effort detailing their family background and the specific personality traits and talents they displayed from a young age, but provides very little information about the secondary schools they attended beyond usually just the school name.

I think you might be overthinking this.

OP unfortunately you are under the illusion that private or selective are better.

It depends on the school. I have been to both and state was far far better in my experience.

My kids go to state and have multiple trips abroad, trips in country, over 80 clubs, Astro pitch, new full theatre, fitness centre etc.

We have three local private schools and they are too small for many clubs and teams.

There is a 3% results difference between our local state and the local granmars. Privates are behind by abiut 5% of state.

Your approach is wrong as you are generalising. Go and see all schools and make a decision then. No one here can tell you anything except their own experience which won’t be yours.

I am arguing that most of a child's success stems from their innate ability combined with their family background, which is reflected in the time spent.

@Breeze67 I think this is true for primary school. Below the ages of 11 /12, the family is the main focus for the child and they get a lot of their support (or not) and are heavily influenced by their family.
If you have a decent local primary school, a bright NT child, motivated parents, there is little to no point in using private education IMO.

In secondary school, their peer group becomes more important to them. If your DC gets into a bad crowd, this can have devastating consequences to that DC's outcomes.

Private schools excel in providing 'soft skills' to DC. If you take an 'average' state school DC and compare against an 'average' privately educated DC, I would bet the privately educated DC would be more confident, self assured and polished. This is very hard to measure on a spreadsheet.

@Breeze67 you seem to be obsessing over numbers when most people use it to rule private education in or out. Most people use the spreadsheets to answer 'can we afford private education for our DC?'

You know your DC best. When you go around the different schools, don't you get a feeling that one environment will be better for your DC than the others? For us, it was the grammar school. For others it was private schools or the good local comp.

You are asking us if private education is 'worth it' but it's impossible to answer as we don't know you, your DC and the schools you are considering.
Mumsnet is very good at giving opinions on specific schools if you are willing to list them.

OP unfortunately you are under the illusion that private or selective are better.

I thought in general this is a consensus, isn't it? Why spend money on private education or go to such great lengths for the 11+ to get into a selective school? I am not just talking about exam results or university destinations. If we only look at grades, an able child in a state school can certainly do very well and stand out academically and have good chance getting into Oxbridge. It is about the school ethos, hardware and software, and the peer group as a whole. I agree with your point that every school is different, and there are certainly state schools that are better than some grammar or private schools.

Agree. Completely grim, dismissive attitude. My DD has lots of dedicated teachers who care and teach well at her comprehensive.
Attitude to education, motivation & drive are partially influenced by schools and partially influenced by values at home. Young people can and do achieve well without attending any of the schools types in the title.
Surely rather than an abstract discussion the most effective way forward would be to look at published data ( results, inspection reports etc. ), visit the potential schools & maybe ask opinions of those who have direct knowledge and then weigh things up (costs, transport results, ethos, sports, groupings etc.) and decide which school is best for your child. Most of us don’t have a choice. If you do it is surely about specific schools. It isn’t is grammar or private better. It is which of these specific schools suits best.

The setting discussion is interesting. Mine and DD’s experience of sets has been fairly similar. Early introduction for maths. Later introduction for science & mfl. English, humanities, arts etc. mixed ability. For me this had no ill effects. Nor was it some kind of scaring experience. For maths when topics and skills taught are very attainment dependent it is more important. For other subjects different groups can work. I don’t know what the outcomes will be for DD yet, but I can’t say I ever sit around worrying about her being in true mixed ability classes for history or English etc.

I don’t have strong feelings about sets, but on MN a look of people see highly selective schools or high levels of settings across all subjects within schools as the only route to academic success. There are other routes.

“If you have a decent local primary school, a bright NT child, motivated parents, there is little to no point in using private education IMO.”

@Pipsquiggle I get your point. But I have already invested six years in my daughter’s private primary. Perhaps it is because she was so young when she started, and as an immigrant unfamiliar with the British school system, I relied more on the school to guide me at the beginning. Starting school at four, she seemed so little that I naturally wanted to protect her, and private school felt like a safe option.
However, by secondary school, academics become the priority. By then, she will be familiar with most subjects—through school, self-study, or external tuition—and she will have formed her own ideas. Letting her navigate things on her own might not be a bad thing. For instance, I have observed that in my targeted grammar school, many clubs are student-led, whereas in my targeted private school, they are teacher-led. I think that while teacher guidance is better for primary school, encouraging student autonomy in secondary school is not a bad thing.

“If you take an 'average' state school DC and compare against an 'average' privately educated DC, I would bet the privately educated DC would be more confident, self assured and polished. ”

You are right, that is 'average'. However, confidence is often tied to resources. Kids from wealthy families—those with big houses, high consumption, and parents who can bail them out at work or school—are naturally more confident because, frankly, if they fail, there are no catastrophic consequences. Within a private school, as paying customers, they receive more care and less harsh pressure, so of course they appear confident. They are also taught social graces, which makes them seem more polished.
But that does not necessarily represent inner strength, which is what I value most. I have a stereotype that Americans are the most confident people, yet they are often ignorant of anything outside their own country or struggle with basic math, and they are still incredibly confident. I am not sure if that is a good thing. So, I feel that confidence is positive if—and only if—you also possess inner strength and genuine ability. If you have those, you can likely succeed in a state school environment. This does not contradict your point about averages. You are right that every school and every child is different. I am not looking for a definite answer, just sharing some thoughts on this.

We’ve gone independent selective day school. The school can pay for excellent teachers, we can access teachers easily by email and they are accountable to us.

The school environment is good - minibuses for transport, nice classrooms, theatre sports pitches and coaches.

There are lots of clubs for quirkier kids- and the ethos fits our values. I feel it is value for money .

@Breeze67 have you visited any secondary schools yet?

Yes. And I have also thoroughly researched their websites, ethos, and subject-specific results. I reviewed online discussions to weigh the good reviews against the bad (while you can't trust everything online, a school with 90% positive reviews is generally more reliable than one with mixed or negative feedback) Between that and some anecdotal gossip from friends, I have a clear preference order, all things considered.

@Breeze67 brilliant, so you must have a good idea of which school would be the best fit for your DC - go with that.

Unless you want to go into more detail as to what your DC is like (sporty, drama-obsessed, academic, shy, quiet, lively, boisterous....), which area you live in and which schools you are considering, I fail to see what else you want from this thread. It's your decision on whether you want to spend your money on private education. You've done your research, I am sure you've made the correct choice.

There are quite a few private schools near me that are world leading, there are others that I deem would be a complete waste of money........ that's my opinion.