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?

Hills Road?

I wanted my kid to go to the right school for her. Fee paying was an option I could add to the list, but if she had preferred one of the state options I’d have gone with that.

What I love about it though is that they are zero tolerance on disruptive behaviour, the extra curricular opportunities are really rich and they have such good resources for wellbeing support.

they are creating the environment for her to succeed, whatever that looks like - she is excelling academically as it happens but results aren’t my focus. I’m making an investment in her developmental years.

People should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. Flash cars. Fancy homes. Exotic holidays. Private school. It’s their choice . Suck it up.

Advantage. Simple as

Allog · Today 16:10
People should be able to spend their money on whatever they want. Flash cars. Fancy homes. Exotic holidays. Private school. It’s their choice . Suck it up.

I agree. However especially where private schools are concerned, people enjoy lecturing others about their lack of moral compass.

This thread has taken a fairly predictable turn into a state versus private school debate, but that wasn’t what the post was asking. The question wasn’t about the general benefits of private education whether that’s for children with SEN, those who benefit from smaller class sizes or those whose learning has been disrupted by poor behaviour in the classroom.

The OP was asking about a very specific pathway: parents who place their children on an intensely competitive trajectory from the age of four or five, with the goal of getting them into the most selective schools. That’s a different discussion altogether and I think it’s worth keeping that distinction in mind before posting.

Exactly. It’s not state / private lots of private school families are not like that at all.

Perhaps it’s because most people don’t come across that type of parent in real life. I don’t in my life now thankfully but did when we worked in the City. Remember one overseas parent asking me at a baby group “you’re English - explain what I need to do to get my child into Oxford - working back”.

The OP was asking about a very specific pathway: parents who place their children on an intensely competitive trajectory from the age of four or five, with the goal of getting them into the most selective schools.

Ok, well as pp have pointed out, if the children aren’t intelligent enough, then no amount of coaching or pushy parenting will enable them to pass the entrance exams to the very academically selective schools.

Both my dc went to grammar schools
I just wanted them to be happy thrive and be free of the behaviour which unfortunately was a problem in our local schools
I can see why parents want to send their kids to private schools, but it is sad that some state schools fail children although there are many good teachers and kids with potential at those schools.

@38thparallel

You are absolutely correct that private schools are not some kind of magic wand that can transform a non academic non clever child into an academic clever child.

What everyone seems to be forgetting in this debate is that between 50 and 80% of intelligence is genetic and the rest environmental. Intelligent people on average are more financially successful than less intelligent people. Intelligent and successful people tend to marry and have children with other intelligent and successful people.

Tongue completely in cheek but if you really wanted to achieve greater "fairness" or equality in society then you would force intelligent people to marry or at least have children with people of lower intelligence.

For example the high flying female corporate lawyer in her 30s should only be able to have children with say a good looking hunky (but dim) gym instructor in his 20s. That way you would even out the "unfair" genetic advantages.

I admire your honesty. As someone who cannot afford such things I do not think that means you shouldn't. As if I could I would like most if they are being honest.

1st off Lady - wow. Respect!

On to the question specifically of why some parents will aim for the top schools for their kids - it's simply because they can, without it being too much of a stretch to them!

If you're not, it's (among other things) because it's too much of a stretch, based on your wealth, your child's ability, your level of organisation, where you live, your current social circle, etc.

OP - CAN you? Actually? Get your child into St Paul's? Or is this hypothetical?

Like many people have said here, they want the best for their child that they can reasonably achieve. This very much applies to the top-tier schools as well.

I recently met a mum who sent FOUR of her kids to a Westminster type school. Wow. I was impressed.(She was lovely by the way).

If you earn 1 or 2 million a year, the cost/effort of tutoring your kids is the equivalent of buying WH Smith CPG worksheets for a person that earns 50k. (I'm talking London). My mum bought CPG worksheets for me btw.

I have ONE of my kids in a Westminster type school. Based on our income/my organisational skills / child's ability, that's where we are. (p.s. I feel surprisingly extraordinarily proud of my child AND myself for acieving this). If all my kids could have gotten into St Paul's - why NOT? Why NOT aim high? For fear of disappointment? If so, i'd speak to a therapist about emotional management.

Also, like others have said - it doesn't GUARANTEE financial success. But it does increase their chances of financial success (and Confidence). Yes, you could spend all that money/ effort and the kid.... earns 15k a year. Yes, I would be disappointed. But we'd take it from there, and hope they made the very best of that 15k. Does that mean I shouldn't have tried? They COULD also become head of....Barclays. Tesco. Bp.

I had a 19 year old nanny recently, who said she wished her parents had put in the amount of effort that I put into my kids (or at least had made more of an effort) to secure a better future for her. I thought that was a nice thing to say.

One of my children wants to be a teacher. Are £40k per year for however many years spent on that child worth it if they then want to be a teacher? Absolutely! They will have got as much out of those £40k as possible, and will have achieved what they want to be in life (all other things being equal). I always tell them that they are extremely privileged to be able to do all that we can afford, and I am sure they do not actually understand what I really mean, however they will if they have their own family and have less cash at their disposal, but those are decisions that they will have to make when they are older. What I can do as a parent is support them the best I can while reminding them that they are so bloody lucky to have what they do.

It's not just a 2 tier society though is it? There are many many children in the UK whose parents don't read to them daily, cook them nutritious meals, provide adequate emotional support, and all the other things listed by @strawberrybubblegum (which I read upthread but now can't remember!). Your child is already so much better off than those children, how is this fair? Should your DCs access to books and healthy food, and warm beds and loving parents be restricted so as not to give them a "better" life than those others? I wish I knew how to give all children an equally high standard of living as my own DC but whilst I work that out, I can't fathom the argument that implies equality of opportunity is so important that it justifies reducing/punishing those at the highest levels. That really is race to the bottom mentality IMO

She is 3..
You ain’t seen nothing yet😂
Come back in 8 years and tell us the same then 😂😂😂😢😢

I agree and think that quality time and attention spent with parents is far more important than spunking money at private tutors/private schools etc for their development. Throwing money/resources at kids who don't enjoy that kind of upbringing is still not going to drag them up to the same level. And "banning" private tuition/private schools really won't "level the playing field" either - the kids with supportive/engaged parents will still be the ones generally who succeed. No easy answers but politics of spite and envy won't reduce the disparity.

Absolutely.

The advantages @IAmTooOldFor is (perfectly reasonably) comfortable about giving her child - nutritious food, and stable home with strong parenting boundaries,, emotional coaching, educational support with reading and homework, varied childhood experiences - create a far, far bigger gulf in opportunity between her child versus the child who has none of these things than exists between a child at state versus private school.

Private shcool is really nothing compared to having stability and support from loving parents.

Hell, private school versus state school is still just tinkering around the edges compared to the gulf between top 10% of state schools (85% to 98% of GCSE grades at 7–9) versus the bottom 10% of state schools (5-10% of GCSE grades at 7-9).

So the objection to private schools clearly isn't about having equality of opportunity for the children... otherwise people would object to these much, much greater inequalities for the children, who can't choose their parents.

What private schools do represent though, is inequality of choice for the parents. And that's what you really object to - that there's a choice not open to you .

This isn't ypu standing up for social justice. It's just you being cross that you're on the wrong side of this divide (arguably based on your job and spending choices - which you have far more influence over that those kids from unstable homes do).. and conveniently ignoring that your kids (through nothing but luck in which parents they were born to) are on the lucky side of the far, far more significant divide

I also completely agree with you and a really well written and clear response.

I would add that whilst I agree that whilst private vs state school is really tinkering around the edges compared to to having a healthy diet, safe home environment, sufficient sleep, parental support on interests, parental boundaries etc etc. What is overlooked and possibly more important is genetics, with 50 to 80% of intelligence being inherited.

This maybe a matter of choice for the parents (choosing to marry and have children with someone who is not cleverer than them). However it certainly isn't a matter of choice for the child.

What i find sadly ironic is that we have chosen private for the reasons I outlined up thread (escape bullying, helping my DC thrive, not just survive etc). and yet we're judged by by people who have chosen state school who: buy huge houses and landrovers etc, go on very expensive overseas holidays every year, buy and wear all the latest fashion, do date nights once a month in fancy hotels whilst kids go to whichever friends will have them, openly say they don't have kids doing lots of extra curricular activities because its inconvenient logistically etc etc - none of which we choose or can afford to do because we chose to prioritise private school. They are all valid choices, but yet the private school is the one that is judged.

They are all valid choices, but yet the private school is the one that is judged.

@EweCee yes, even private medicine isn’t judged in the same way - though I suppose every private patient is one less for the over burdened NHS.
Also there have been numerous posts saying that state schools are better than private schools - in which case why does anyone care.
However there is the class aspect - people love having a go at poshos which they consider all privately educated people to be.

I think a lot of intelligent, high flying women aren't having kids at all, nevermind mating with a lower IQ male.

If you have a child you should absolutely be trying to give them the very best you can afford. Why on earth wouldn’t you, certainly not because the family next door can’t afford the same, whether thats schooling/tutoring/sports clubs/days out or whatever. Paying for school is no different to moving into the catchment of a good secondary, would you bad that too?

Not all but many do. And almost always with a much more diverse range of students and with many of the top students at age 11 being siphoned off to private. And yet the state schools still outperform.

we’re very lucky that there’s at least 3 genuinely great schools with slightly different ethos’s that we’d get into. But it’s a bit of a self fulfilling cycle.

Often the more grammar schools there are in the area the less good the state schools become because it can be harder to get quality teachers combined with the more academic kids and those with more involved/engaged parents get creamed off and state schools end up with a higher proportion of more complex kids that they don’t have the budget for.

it’s exactly the same issue with private healthcare - that’s why a two tier system is fundamentally wrong

Equating narrow financial success with being “intelligent and successful” is a depressing and reductive
mindset. Successful by what measure? Big house and car? I wouldn’t want my children educated to think like that poster.

Surely it's better for the teachers (and students) to not have to deal with such a broad range of abilities in a class in that case? Parents "paying for private" is what the state should be doing anyway. In the current state system, more academically able kids get sacrificed at the alter of the kids who need extra help. I've had experience of teaching, and when I have, my instinct is to absolutely put focus on the kids that need extra help. (At the expense of kids who for e.g. read fluently). But the kids who don't read well might for have excellent social skills, which the teacher doesn't consider in their balancing equation.