Putting kids through private school, or moving house to get to a better school

[mudskipper]

The other thing to remember is that there's no law that says you have to treat them all the same. If you've got one kid who'd benefit more from private education (whether needing extra help, or being super bright) then nothing wrong with treating them as individuals IMO.

[eek]

If daddy is a code monkey only earning low 6 figures, they aren't going to be invited to the best of parties, and as for the parents, they're worse; the wife has never been invited out to any drinks with the mummies as she works .

Seriously.

FTFY as that is what the real issue will be.

[socialworker]

I suppose it depends on your area but my daughter went to state primary and secondary but then to independent for A levels. She went to an all girls state comp as by age 8 at primary she was already getting unwanted attention from boys and i wanted her to be able relax without all that. I am very glad I sent her to the indpendent but it was a little late in the day and she had to retake her A levels as it was just too short a time frame to catch up with the standards. She went on to get a 1st from a Russell group uni, MA at Oxford and now a training contract with a top city firm of solicitors, so it was worth it. I dont think she would have got where she has without it frankly. It isnt just the grades it is the confidence which these schools seem to able to instil. The Oxford year has probably been the most valuable, Im afraid just the word Oxford on your CV seems to open all sorts of doors.

Unless the local primary is really awful Im not sure I would bother at that level, it is no bad thing to be able to mix at all levels, and you can make up your self for most of the short comings. It is later on when you cannot compensate for the teaching.

[Troll]

The other thing to remember is that there's no law that says you have to treat them all the same. If you've got one kid who'd benefit more from private education (whether needing extra help, or being super bright) then nothing wrong with treating them as individuals IMO.

I'm 100% certain that if you adopted that approach it would be thrown back in you face in later years (but I recognise the sentiment you express) I preferred the "give them all the same opportunity" approach

[mudskipper]

I'm 100% certain that if you adopted that approach it would be thrown back in you face in later years (but I recognise the sentiment you express) I preferred the "give them all the same opportunity" approach

That is, I believe, the ethos of the comprehensive system.

[formant]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. Generally I'm with psychocandy. Any kid can do well in any circumstance. Despite from a well off family, I went through (German) state school, and doubt I'd have profited from private schooling. I did well, now in my late 20s with a couple of degrees from the UK's better universities and not far off completing my part-time PhD, I have a better career than any private schooler I've come into contact with over the years.

On the other hand I'm not pleased about the school my older stepdaughter attends and we'd like to move her and her younger sister (starting this year) somewhere better. We're going to go for a better and no less local state school, but I am temped by some of the private schools around, as they do just offer more, particularly for musical and athletic kids as well as with regards to foreign language education. And, as a paying customer you get the right to complain if they're force fed bits and pieces of religious BS by their teachers. I'd only consider private for primary school though, I believe that in secondary school you need to learn to adjust to and compete with a broader cross-section of society.

[doodab]

Top private schools undoubtedly get better results but are not affordable even for relatively affluent people. This is as clear an example of economic inequality begetting economic inequality as you could hope to see. OTOH when you look at the league tables and % of intake at top universities etc it's obvious that there are few if any state schools that achieve the same standards.

Any child can do well at a bad school but the fact is that most don't. You can take this as a statistic or you can try and figure out why some succeed despite the odds and do your best to guarantee your children have those traits or advantages.

My personal feeling is that although the private sector schools are undoubtedly good there are other factors that lead to their pupils getting better results and these are probably the same or similar factors that enable children at bad schools to defy the odds. I'd guess that some of these factors (stable home, better educated parents, mummy not working & daddy having more time so the kids get several hours a day of one on one attention and help with reading/writing/answering questions about the world from an early age, time and money for extra curricular activities like museums, zoos and foreign holidays) are also strongly correlated with the economic circumstance of the parents and so more prevalent in families who send their children to private schools.

So at the end of the day if you're going to be impoverishing yourself to put your kids through an average private school you'd probably be better off sending them to the local comp and using the time and money to do a better job of parenting, unless you're a ne'er do well who happened to get lucky with the job market in which case sending them to a private school to minimise your influence is their best hope.

[DodgyAgent]

Top private schools undoubtedly get better results but are not affordable even for relatively affluent people. This is as clear an example of economic inequality begetting economic inequality as you could hope to see. OTOH when you look at the league tables and % of intake at top universities etc it's obvious that there are few if any state schools that achieve the same standards.

.

The rest of what you say is logical - though obvious- I am not quite sure though what you mean by this and why you think it necessary to begin your point with these remarks.

[Troll]

That is, I believe, the ethos of the comprehensive system.

Indeed and like communism it sounds great on paper but in practice has different results.

At the family level - i.e. me - Private works cos I'm the one paying for it and can monitor closely and decide if I am getting value for money and ultimately take my money elsewhere

The Comprehensive system says we have your money and will decide how best to spend it, and the result is a dash to mediocrity in the name of fairness

The true solution is replacing the amount allocated for a child's education by the Govt with a voucher system (pretty much on a par with Private fees) so the parent is able to wield true influence over any school

We did lobby the local authority to get hold of each child's education grant to ease the pain of the fees - but got nowhere

I note recent developments that the authorities are now using boarding places at Private schools to place difficult kids i.e. the feral ones always in trouble - so it may be worthwhile revisiting this approach and using that as a precedent to getting hold of the child's grant.
The unfortunate consequences of this is that you have to do some extra research to establish how many unruly children have been placed in the school and take a view on the likely impact

[Platypus]

I'm going to refer you to this thread,
http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...g-private.html

In particular my rather excellent response, which still holds true IMO. Slightly updated here for your context:

In Summary, I did, I wouldn't again.

Once they're in the system it's very difficult to move them out again, away from their friends and into an environment where they'll be treated as lepers, snobs, rich bastards and so on. So the later you begin spending on private education, the better, because IME there is no going back.

Now to the education. A bright, well motivated and parentally well supported child will do just as well in a good state comp as they will in a private school. In fact my local comp regularly turns out students who achieve 3 A's at A-Level. Of course, the private school does that too, and as a percentage generates many more students who achieve that. But it costs a lot of money to achieve that (min. 7 years at £10k p.a.). Of course it's not just about results. They will get more opportunities at a private school with a wider variety of sports and activities that a state school has neither time nor money to accommodate.

The social aspect. My kids would have been better off at the local school with local friends within walking distance, rather than at a school 15 miles away where the pupils come from a wide area. My (now late teens) kids are a little lost in their own home town because they don't know anyone.

The cost. You have to consider what if your marriage goes wrong, you'll have children at an expensive school that neither of you can afford to pay for (I'm assuming you'll end up much worse off after a divorce, this is my experience and that of many others I know). Of course, you won't want to traumatise your kids any more so you'll do your best to keep them at the school they know. This will kill you financially and may even then result in you having to change their school eventually anyway, back to the local comp. I advise this: if you can save now and pay for the education from savings later on, then go for it. But if you'll be relying on your continuing income to pay for it, you can't afford private education, so don't do it. Think of it like Capex vs. Opex.

If your local state schools are bad, just move house.