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?

Read this op

Source: The Sutton Trust https://share.google/MOlHE5hkL7UMDccUd

So all children should have to put up with shit resources, fewer teachers, disruptive classmates and larger classes, if thats all they have access to in terms of the the local state offering? Ridiculous post.

In that case let's just become a communist country where every profession gets paid exactly the same wage, where our children are raised by robots programmed with same level of emotional and intellectual intelligence, and have exactly the same experiences, all equating to those of the most disadvantaged families. Society will clearly thrive.

Exactly. A nice house in a nice street, room to study, safe areas to play in, are all advantages. I could never have afforded private school for my dauggter, but do not begrudge or resent those that can.

I think this clear comment cuts to the heart of the question.

Some parents have a strong motivation for their children to do better / be better / have easier and happier lives than themselves. It's an ambitious outlook for their children (labelled "tiger mums", "pushy parents" helicopter parenting" etc ) often associated with certain cultures (Indian, Nigerian, Chinese etc) or right wing mindset. Of course there will always be some children that will push back such parenting style and rebel but for the most part they accept such a parenting approach as "their parents acting in their best interests ".

How this manifests itself is dependent on how much time and money is available to the parents.
Some parents without access to much money will sit down and help their children with studies, help them revise, discipline them on homework etc.
Some parents will access to some money may pay for a private tutor or tutoring services like "Explore Learning" at Sainsbury's etc.
Some parents with access to much more money can pay for a private school education of differing qualities and pricing.
And lastly there can be a mix of the above three elements.

The objection to such an approach often from a more "stand off " style of parenting or left wing views is that it is seen as "not fair" that some children get more support from their parents on their education than others and that all children should be treated equally.

Whilst sounding great in practice, this goes against the human nature of parents wanting to do their best for their children. Sure you could ban private schools but you would just see an increase in private tutoring and moving to areas with the best schools. Sure you could ban private tutoring but you would just see an increase in online tutoring. And if you banned all forms of paid for educational support then you would just see some parents investing more of their own time in support.

Trying to achieve equality and "fairness" in education opportunities for all children inevitably leads to the dumbing down of all children to the lowest level.

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

Fixed it for you.

Everyone does, whether they have money or not. They lean on family ties and friends, and teach them social skills, and other skills and resources they have. They speak to them and encourage them. That's normal. It's also not equal.

Incidentally, professional jobs absolutely don't allow any kind of nepotism these days - quite the opposite with diversity schemes etc. But trades give apprenticeships and opportunities to their kids, and no one blinks.

My child goes to private school, I don't mind if they don't earn much money or have a prestigious job, that's on them to determine what they want from their life, I'd just like them to have a happy childhood, have many opportunities for learning, and build resilience and have strong moral fibre, and smaller class sizes, fewer disruptions with more attention from a teacher will contribute to this.

Ohh, but that's different ...🤔🙄

This thread reminds me of an Argentinian parable:
There are two farmers Antonio and Josez who are good friends. They are both equally poor in every respect except that Antonio has a goat that he loves very much and is proud of. This makes Josez angry and jealous.

One day Josez is walking along a beach when he discovers a magic lantern with a genie that grants him one wish (a bit of a mean genie). Rather than wishing for a fortune, Josez wishes for Antonio's goat to die.

The moral of the parable is that left wing politics is based on envy rather than ambition. They can accept being poor so long as no one else is rich. They can accept becoming worse off so long as no one else is becoming better off. The pursuit of "fairness " is more important than improvement.

🫤

Medicine isn’t an elite career any more.

the careers that you can get into on raw talent and achievement are much less dominated by private school children.

so engineering, medicine, law to an extent, etc it’s much more about have you got the academic qualifications and can you work hard.

these days the sorts of careers that the “elite” private schools access are media (journalism and TV), politics, management generally and financial services (the kind where you personally know the ceo of a multinational not the kind where you are running a bank branch).

however op, the London arms race you describe isn’t really a thing with the aristocracy/upper class English. Their kids go to a reasonably relaxed day prep then on to boarding school. They aren’t in the arms race.

the arms race is the middle classes who want their kids to do well academically (this is often also immigrants as well - the general belief amongst immigrants to the U.K. is the academic achievement will overcome to some extent any predujice there is, Asian etc are very over represented in the types of schools you are talking about).

I'm in NI. We don't really have private secondary schools (there are very few) because of the grammar school system. But I don't think it's a fair system at all.

If you're a smart kid from a poorer background whose parents don't have the time or money to help you prepare for the SEAG test then you're probably not going to get as good a result as you would if they could.

My daughter goes to an excellent prep school which is part of an excellent grammar school. The fees are £7k a year and that's a small price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing she's in a safe nurturing environment.

We live pretty much next door to the school but pupils come from far and wide as distance from the school is usually way down the list of admissions criteria.

Surely it’s a good thing for society generally if parents invest in their children in whatever way they can so they become as successful as they can be. Thats what our country needs. The issue is surely parents at the other end of the scale.

My friends sons went to a very posh private school. One of them was not academically bright at all and barely scraped into an ex poly to do a purely vocational degree. The other one just wants to work in the arts. So it doesn't always mean you're a high flier. However, whatever you end up doing you learn how to operate at the highest level socially.

Loads of parents who send their children to state school pay for dance classes, sports clubs and tutoring. They also pay for maths, science, creative writing and computing clubs during holidays. This a much bigger group than the ones sending their children to private schools.

The vast majority of students at the top universities will come from this group. There is a state school near me where a quarter of their pupils got Oxbridge offers this year. I'm sure the school did a good job, but I doubt many of the parents left it entirely in the hands of the school.

Stopping people spending money on their children's education is impossible and even if you did, how would that help the anyone else?

This is very true. The highly selective, London schools OP mentions are very much about the middle classes equipping their children for the meritocratic professions - and gaining the skills to succeed well in those.

Those elite jobs: politics, very top management, and also the types of role where the main thing is 'fitting in' to serve the very wealthy (eg, selling art and antiques, top level fixer) come from the 'elite' public schools. But it isn't that going to those schools gets you into those circles, so much as that those elite families already know each other, and those schools are where they send their kids which cements those existing connections.

But that's a tiny number of people at a tiny number of schools. As well say that state schools are what make kids become professional footballers...

Oh, and those elite families aren't all old money and public school types. The Blairs very clearly fall into that category, which shows that it's all about personal power and influence - and certainly also about exposure to ideas and people for the children - not schools.

Well the counter argument is that if some parents invest time and money in their children and others don't then that's not "fair".

That the "goal of fairness and equality"in society is more important than society improving. Clearly this just leads to a race to the bottom rather than a pursuit of excellence.

You end up like Cuba with surgeons driving taxis so it’s all “fair” ie crap for everyone.

We chose private as we wanted good discipline, minimal disruption and for our DS to be stretched and have to work hard while being in a like minded community.

I think you are misunderstanding why many people send their kids to private school.

In my case, my DD went to our local state primary at reception, moved to independent prep school from year 3 and stayed in the independent sector.

She wasn’t thriving in her very big and busy state school. She is easily distracted and middle of the road academically so was pretty much ignored. She came on leaps and bounds when we moved her and reached her potential in secondary. She is also very sporty and sports provision in state schools is woeful by comparison.

DS on the other hand has stayed in state throughout as that’s what he wanted. But he is an academic high flyer and not at all sporty so he will do well anywhere.

As I have good experience of both an outstanding London state secondary and a highly competitive, academically selective London day school, I can safely say that the quality of education, the breadth of extra curriculars, and the level of facilities of the independent school are obviously far far better, as you would expect for the £32k per year fees.

If it was up to me, DS would have gone to my DD’s school, but a happy child going to a school they want to be at trumps everything.

They also seem blind to the possibility that their kids may end up being as thick as mince

I’m so sick of this type of comment.

London’s state schools outperform every other area of the country - and by a margin.

I grew up rurally. Drugs are endemic, nowadays there’s a risk of county lines etc. Either your kid is in with the wrong crowd or (for the vast, vast majority) they’re not. London is NO different, and in fact for academic outcomes it’s better. Helps that there are so many choices, academics routes and career options on the doorstep.

Why should a few people be able to spend anything on their children?

My daughter is disabled and we are really fortunate to be able to pay to plug the gaps in the NHS and LA provision for her. Should we not do that? Should we not buy her better equipment and pay for private physio just because other parents can’t? Should we allow her to lose independence and physical strength because others have to?

I think what I hate in London is a huge proportion of the day schools are now pitching themselves at the hugely academic. They only want students who will get mostly 9s and 3 A*. If your child is not hugely academic the options are quite limited. It makes no sense to join this arms race. They dont charge more, their facilities are not necessarily better, they are no fuller. If I opened a 1000 pupil private school near me for children who would be getting say 5/6/7’s at gcse say b’s /c’s at A level i could probably fill it several times over

My kids went to private school but I am not familiar with this ‘arms race’ you mention. The idea was to give them the best education possible, not to get them into ever more competitive schools/Oxbridge. Two of my four (two step, two full) kids didn’t even go to uni. And this is the attitude of the most of the parents I’ve encountered. My stepson went to Charterhouse and my DD did sixth form at a very selective all girls school in London, so you’d think I would have if it was the prevailing attitude. But it just isn’t. I’m sure it exists, I won’t deny that, but just not universally. What my kids did with their education was down to the individual child.