What do parents hope to gain from the private school arms race?

[Abladeofgrass]

Genuine question about the private school “arms race” - what’s actually the end goal?

This is a bit alien to me as I live outside the capital and my kid is just a baby, so genuinely asking rather than being obnoxious. But I read so many threads on here about the trajectory towards a “top” education, especially in and around London - feeder nursery for the 4+, then prep school, tutoring for 7+ or 11+, then one of the big-name secondaries, all aimed at Oxbridge or a “good” university. Sometimes this planning seems to start before the child is even born.

I get that everyone wants the best for their DC, but I’m curious what people feel the actual payoff is? There’s only one PM, only so many top media/barrister/City jobs, and surely plenty of those are filled by people from state schools or less famous privates. So what is it people are hoping this level of selection and competition actually gives their child - is it the school name, the network, the confidence, something else?

@strawberrybubblegum the difference between private schooling and everything else you list is that private schooling is simply unattainable for most of the population and entrenches such huge social divisions that it effectively creates a two-tier society. I will do everything else on your list but I won't consider private education, and I judge parents who do I'm afraid.

I moved ds with SEN and learning difficulties including low cognitive functioning to a private school after he was hideously bullied at his over subscribed supposedly excellent state school we were in the catchment for. He was suicidal at age 10 and self harming. We couldn’t afford to move to the catchment of the better school around and I personally feel that playing catchment monopoly is quite dishonest. We pay 25 k a year for a small independent rural school and Ds is thriving as much as he can, which means he’s coping. It’s not about networking for us it’s about his mental health and I feel grateful we can do it. I know for some parents there is an element of ego about it, but for most in our school it’s about the child being failed in the setting they were. I don’t really care why others make the choices they make. I care about my now 15 year old getting through school intact. He’s not made a suicide attempt in 4. Years thank god. The support he gets at his school is profound.

Looking back to 1968, I was at a state junior school. I spent every break time petrified that it would be my turn to be dragged to the prefab toilet block and have my head shoved down the toilet and the chain pulled.

My parents then paid for me to attend a local independent prep school (attached to a direct grant grammar school) where 40 girls across two year groups would sit on the floor of the hall watching the school talent show, compete to collect the most specimens for the spring wildflower competition and put on a performance of the Walrus and the Carpenter for parents at the end of the summer term.

I’m not saying those things couldn’t happen at a state school but by god it was like stepping into utopia for a 9 year old girl from a run down northern mill town.

It’s very interesting reading all this conjecture, most of which in my view is wrong. When you’re picking a school for your kids you just pick the one that looks the best from what’s in front of you. You want them to go to the school with the nicest facilities, opportunities, experienced/enthusiastic teachers, alongside other kids who’ll work hard and not mess around and all achieve their academic potential in the end. London is no different whatsoever.

all this stuff that parents are choosing a an old boys’ network for life etc is absolute nonsense when it comes to London day schools, I never know anyone who cares much for that at all. Maybe Eton parents feel differently on that score but I suspect it’s still mainly just the incredible opportunities as above.

That difference already exists in the state sector, and much more prominent.
If you can afford to buy s house for 1.5 million upwards, you get excellent education for free, curtesy of the state.
If you can afford a normal house, and fees, you can get excellent education but pay.
otherwise it us a postcode lottery with low chances.
I fail to understand why free excellent schools for extremely wealthy are ok, but having to pay for decent education is somehow evil? Shouldn’t the best free schools be for people who can’t afford private, and not to line the pockets of properly rich people?

There are some very pushy types who either attended these sorts of schools themselves and know of nothing else or didn’t and want perceived better value for their children. London had such a large population there are sufficient wealthy families to create the competition driving up requirements. Outside of the capital it’s never been like that for day school as they were simply content to fill their places with reasonably bright dc at 11 generally, my dc have friends that went to selective day schools in Cambridge from the village primary with just a few months of 11+ tutoring, none of this pushed from 4 lark. Where we moved to the big day “grammar” private school had an entrance exam but it was well known they were flexible especially for siblings, they needed the student numbers and long before the latest cost of living crisis and subsequent vat, 15 years ago they were already seeing costs rise and numbers dropping

The relative cost of a private education in 1968 to 2026 is vastly different though.

Yes, the top schools really are genuinely very, very good at what they do, which is giving their students an outstanding education - in the true sense of the word. Not only academics, but personal development, exposure to all kinds of different experiences and the framing to genuinely grow from those.

Some people seem to think those schools skim off the most able pupils then spoonfeed them to get good grades and give them connections. 🙄 I'm afraid that's simply nonsense. I can only imagine that people who claim that have no idea or experience of what genuine education is. I find it particularly weird when teachers have that view - why on earth have they dedicated their lives to teaching if they think it's all smoke and mirrors, and doesn't actually benefit the child?!? Emotionallly easier to believe it, I guess.

In those highly selective schools, kids will be in the top 2-5% academic ability in the population. Top 2-5% is the minimum ability to get in, it obviously goes up from there. There's a scary number of truly incredible kids! Genetics being what it is, many of the parents who send their children to those schools are very academically able and successful themselves. It's not really about wanting your DC to be the best of the best of the best or laying out their future, but there's certainly a recognition of what your DC is capable of, and wanting to set them up to achieve well in whatever path they choose.

'The happiest places' is an interesting question. Many kids do seem to thrive in a calm school which teaches at a pace that's comfortable for them (too slow is as painful as too fast!), gives plenty of individual support and provides interesting experiences. But it's true that an excellent education does often challenge the child: education is about growth, and challenge is how we grow. Would a school-age child be happier in the moment if they just chilled at home watching cartoons? Maybe. We all love weekends. But lifelong happiness is more complex, and building capability and achieving goals which are meaningful to you are well-recognised pillars.

You have to assume that everyone makes the choices which they think will turn out best overall for their child.

I couldn't afford private school if i wanted to (and as a lifelong socialist, find it a bit morallly dubious), but the reasons why people send their kids there are pretty obvious aren't they? Smaller class sizes and better resources which help a child achieve their academic potential, access to sporting and extracurricular activities, and a social group that will leave them with rich and powerful friends.

I think the top jobs you mention may be accessible to state school children but they have to be really exceptional to get there.

Also i think not all state schools are equal and some families might feel it is a choice between moving house to get into a decent state school, or paying for private.

for some of its family expectations (aiming for the school that 4 generations have been to),
for others it’s caught up in the hype, or having money and wanting to invest it wisely, or entitlement or snobbery, or wanting to avoid behaviour issues, or feeling the more you pay the better it is etc. many reasons. Also, many London state schools are excellent! I’m not sure why you think out of London schools are better- obviously it’s not all of them, but we’ve had the option of several schools with great culture, facilities and results. (Could be something to do with the fact we pay £300 per year per family to support the school on top of all the fundraising!)

Not everyone whose kids go to private schools are like this. We are in London, DD went to a local private school. DH and I had both gone to London private schools so we were giving her what we’d had, neither DH or I went to university but he ran his own business, I worked and we did pretty well. So we didn’t mind if DD didn’t go to university, she’s 23 now and works in a pub. It suits her, she’s had promotions, it may become a career. We only had her to pay for as her brother is severely disabled with ASD and LD. DD has always been a bit socially awkward and dyslexic, I always felt she would have sunk without trace in a big comprehensive and, luckily, we had the choice. The school she went to is mixed ability and co-Ed. I think it was a good choice without all those millstones ambitions and expectations from an early age

That isn't true, outcomes between state schools, both in terms of actual exam results and career outcomes, differ far less than private vs state. Look at the make up of parliament, journalism, law almost any top career (but especially those most influencial in the governance of society) you will see the privately educated massively overrepresented, it's disgusting.

Nope.

The top 10% of state schools in England record 75% to 98% of all GCSE entries at grades 7–9 (equivalent to A*-A).

The national average is about 22% of entries achieve these top marks.

The bottom 10% of state schools get only 4% to 5% of all GCSE entries at grades 7–9. In fact, only 34% to 40% of entries get a standard pass (Grade 4) or higher.

If you genuinely want to improve equality of outcomes, it's state schools you need to look at not private. And conveniently, state schools are the remit and responsibility of the government, so they have free reign to make changes!

Arguably the “good” state schools get the worst of all worlds. They don’t get contextual offers (rightly so) but also they don’t have the advantages of private so hard to get rid of disruptive pupils/ teacher shortage. If that makes you feel any better!

Not everyone chooses private school for jobs alone. Some of us believe in education for the sake of education. DH and I chose one (eschewing a more popular one she also got into) for DD because it was a school that we thought would suit her personality and temperament and is all about creating a love of learning but isn’t pushy or results-only focused. Small classes, thoughtful teaching methods/plans, just as much focus on “non traditional” subjects, fantastic pastoral care - those are some of the reasons we picked this school. Do I think she could get the same results in a state school? She is bright so yes, quite possibly. But it’s the other things that we value, and I can’t think of a better way to spend my money (and I totally get this is a privileged position to be in) than on a happy and enriching education for my DD. It’s not about earning potential.

If you want to apply a bit more nuance, you should consider what level of equality of outcome you should actually expect.

Academic ability is highly heritable. In a meritocratic society, surely we expect ability to lead to success... and in a society where people can make choices then successful parents might choose to live in particular areas (resulting in the state schools in those areas having students with higher average academic ability, and so a higher % of good gcse results)... or else successful parents might choose to pay for their children's education themselves instead of using the state-funded schools (resulting in those private schools likewise having better gcse results).

If you truly want equal outcomes, you need to stop able people from getting any benefit at all from their own ability, or else put enough barriers in each person's way that their intrinsic ability is irrelevant. Is that really what you want?

My DS is a lawyer at a London firm. He's on over £100k a year at 28 years old. He's got 2 friends who are also lawyers, one at an American firm, who is on an even bigger salary. They all went to the same state school. I think things are changing.

@Abladeofgrass London is a totally different breed when it comes to schools and is the reason we moved out of London when we had kids. Constant tutoring for admissions tests and extra curricular coming out their ears. They want “the best” for their children and can afford it but often don’t look at whether it’s “the right” school for a child.

Interestingly our school is picking up lots of children in Y8 and Y9 from highly academic schools where they are just not coping with the pressure and competition.

Completely agree.
Spend money on things you value!
Our children were curious and wanted to learn, so we paid to send them to school with other similar children and talented teachers.
It was never about the outcome, but about the ride. We ensured them to have a happy childhood and school is a major factor in that.
No other way we could have spent money that would have been better. The ‘investment’ was not in expectation of exam results or and top jobs but for them to flourish.
At that stage I didn’t work in education, but I later did train as a teacher and worked in local state secondary schools before moving to teach in private. This completely reinforced that we had made the best decision for our children in avoiding those state schools.

So instead of making state schools better, we make sure that even less children can access a good education?
Every child in private saves the state money, and now provides an income for the state. If this would be invested in education, we wouldn’t need private schools! But state schools get worse every year.
As i said above, a very solid percentage of parents in my children’s private schools are state school teachers. They have very good reasons to send their children private, and its not a social flex.

And in terms of outcomes- the state school in our very rich area (out of budget for us by about 1 million for a house) has top results, and very positive progress 8, starting from already above average.
The state schools i gave access to have a negative progess 8, and are below national average.

The second two of your bullets are increasingly irrelevant and outdated views now, as anyone involved in recruitment for City law firms or medicine will tell you.

Agreed.

Totally agree

People send their children to super selective private schools because they are ambitious, their children are clever enough to get in and they can afford it.

People with money will always find ways to give their children an advantage over others whether private schools exist or not.