Hi Ozbargainers,
I am a single father with a son who is about to start primary school in Sydney. I want to give him a good education and have been considering putting him into a private school.
Obviously being the only income earner it would mean the school fees would take up quite a bit of my savings. Therefore I'm debating on whether to put him in a private or public school. What do you guys think? Will he get the same education? Appreciate your thoughts and experience!
i went to a public school when i was a child, it was overcrowded due to zoning and population density, and one of the kids beat up the head master, and the female student teachers didn’t get the respect they deserved form the year 12 boys…… was one of the lower socio economic areas before inner city gentrification. Most parents didn’t care, and if they did there was little that could be done.
could happen anywhere!
Yep, and private schools are just better at keeping it hush hush. News like that is no good for the bottom line of a private school.
^This, I know of two well respected private schools that paid the victims to keep it quiet and sign a NDA.
I'm in a private school and it is great. I've never been in a public school so I don't really know what it's like, but I do have friends in public schools and they don't seem to have any problem with it. I guess it depends if your zone has a good one, if not then you might want to go for private school. Of course, it also depends on your ability to afford it. Don't go into your savings for it, your probably better off moving to a good zone.
Parents have an AMEX card each. Will get them to do the top up :)
Just ignore the tall poppy muppets.
lol you really have nothing else to do but go through people's past comments.
Kind of pathetic if you ask me.
I'm sorry, but the 13 upvotes on that comment with not a single negative, says otherwise.
"your probably better off". Keep up that education. :p
My bad lol
I hope you have your eye on financial independence and early retirement (FIRE).
Of course.
We have chosen public school for our child. She is happy and doing well. Because we pay very low fees ($50 per year, which is voluntary) we have plenty of money left over for extra curricular activities of her choosing, as well as a tutor should one be required.
Socially, she is doing quite well. She has made lovely friends at school who she also plays with outside of school.
Friends of ours chose to go with private school and they struggle with the costs. Not just the fees, but the uniforms and a lot of other extra costs (excursions and extra things). They also find it difficult to keep up with the social expectations of other people at the school with much higher disposable incomes. Not that anyone should ever feel the need to "keep up with the Jones's" so to speak but all the other children throw lavish birthday parties and give each other over the top gifts.
I always prefered the fairy bread soft drink and party pie kind anyway xD
The Ozbargain way :)
What you have said is so true, I personally know of a lady with 2 kids that go to a private school and each year the fees keep going up, and the extras they have to pay for is unbelievable in 2018 the eldest has to have a mac book for school, and as you said the social activities with the other children are mind boggling and yes this family is struggling trying to keep up with the jones’s
my son goes to a private school …. the parties aren’t lavish and we drive a 15 year old car, the school has a program where you can buy used uniforms as kids out grow them, it’s popular with all the parents regardless of income.
and i pay $28,000 a year in school fees in primary school…. we aren’t wealthy and go without many things to pay that $28,000, rarely eat out to save money, but then what else would it be spent on, holidays, new car, more clothes, bigger TV …. none of those have as much impact on our daily lives as his school does and his enthusiasm to learn and the support he gets to learn.
we complain if we work for a bad company and wish we could work elsewhere…. for kids school is like work.
he just compains his friends have iphones and he has android …..
The thinking from my friends was public school for Primary and private school for secondary. It very much depends on the school. I would start with visiting the local public school and see what facilities they have, talk to the teachers, etc. Often schools have an open day when you can visit the school and talk about enrolment. Ask about the policy on bullying, remedial classes, etc. The general consensus is that most kids do OK with whatever schooling they have, it is the more marginal ones that need the extra attention.
There is also a study that shows that kids from public schools are more likely to finish their University degrees; presumably, because public school kids are more used to doing it for themselves.
Poor kids can be badly picked on at Public schools; where parents jetting off for ski holidays and inviting other kids along can be a "thing". It might be hard if you can't "keep up".
Poor kids can be badly picked on at Public schools
You mean private?
This happened to someone I know, in primary school the person was bullied by some students and the person's teacher, stopped talking for a year and had to be taken out of the christian school, the person has never fully spoken about what has happened.
Sorry, yeah I meant private.
finish university degrees is a broad term …. it would depend on which course ….. to get into medicine you would need to be in the top 5% in your year 12 scores ,and most of those are from private schools, and it also depends on which university your child wants to get into, e.g to do non STEM degrees you can get in with a lesser score and at more universities… so it also depends what course your child wants to do later in life ….. i’m sure some people do uni courses that lead to no related job in the end but they had to do something after year 12 and their options are limited by their year 12 scores and subjects that didn’t in year 12.
Personally I think there is a fault in the system. All kids should be made to do a gap year after Year 12 so they can have a good think about what they want to do and to become a bit more self reliant before they start University. Some courses now include an interview as part of the process, not just marks, which assists the University to determine who is more likely to thrive and complete the degree. Being good, academically, does not mean you are the one best suited to undertake a particular career and the end of year exam process has very little correlation with what people will experience in their professional lives.
Fortunately I went to University in the early 1980s so both my degrees didn't incur HECs fees. They are both Science based but the Chemistry degree was finished because I started it; the second degree, in Digital Technology, is where I got my career. I was much better prepared for my second degree than my first because I was a bit older and had actually spent some time in the workforce. I was motivated because I knew what I was hoping to achieve rather than just doing a degree because I got the marks to get in.
Public School.
As a teacher, my best advice to you would be to contact the school periodically and ask for an update on your child, and make it extremely clear to the teacher that you would like to be contacted whenever your child is misbehaving or showing success in the classroom.
The most important factor for a child success (in my opinion) is the parents' involvement in their child's education.
If you are sufficiently involved, then it doesn't matter whether the school is public or private.
Contact the school year adviser, he/she will ask all subject teacher complete an interim report which usually outlines the kids behavior in class, academic performance, whether complete homework etc.
it's a no brainer. if you are sole income earner and worried about affording anything, then don't do it. There is no difference in academic outcomes despite people trying to project otherwise.
Except for the fact that you are making that up and the figures do not support your contention.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/priv…
lol great research.stick to your day job.
Oh, so you think ATAR statistics from VTAC aren’t relevant. Perhaps if you went to a decent school you’d have understood that?
Do ATAR statistics take into account the students who asked to leave private schools in Year 9 and 10 because they are not doing well academically? Or students who attend the private school on academic scholarships? ATAR is the headline number but it does not tell the whole story,
@Burnertoasty: Happy with my schooling. You missed my point entirely. Go and read your "research"again and then come back and admit you're clueless.
@Dont Care: It would help if you actually made a point. Perhaps you should reconsider the quality of your education?
@Burnertoasty: Please don't tell me you're putting forward facts on this site!
You know it's always better to just troll and namecall to make a point without ever actually providing any form of compelling argument!!
… simply pointing out that many private schools exclude students in year 9 and 10 who are not doing well academically so that the school can maintain high average ATAR scores. The excluded student typically completes Year 12 at public schools or TAFE.
Hmm, so ALL the other studies mentioned are wrong but this one with a different outcome just happens to be the correct one? I can't be bothered delving deeper into it, but that immediately set's of some serious alarm bells in my head.
What other studies? The ones you’ve made up and haven’t presented? I’m the only person who has provided a link to back up my claims, which includes three seperate data sets, which are current and apply directly to the Australia education system. Regardless of your opinion, the data is undeniable, Private schools on average do make a big difference. (To the cohort, not the individual obvsiously). If you take away government selective schools, the already huge gap would be even bigger.
Try again buddy.
What other studies?
Gee, maybe it's the link in the first line of your article that leads to one titled Thirty studies and 15 years later: review shows public schools produce same results seems you didn't read your article to well
I’m the only person who has provided a link to back up my claim
Umm
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/5393665/redir
and
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/5393258/redir
@tryagain: ‘Once you remove the sociopath economic advantage…’
What the hell does that even mean? That’s trying to alter reality to prove a point. That’s like saying once you remove the carcinogens from cigarettes, they are perfectly safe.
Read the whole article, instead of cotton picking what you want to believe.
‘Once you remove the sociopath economic advantage…’
What the hell does that even mean? That’s trying to alter reality to prove a point.
Do you mean the sociopath economic advantage, if so that's one of the fundamental considerations of the discussion, the question isn't, what are the differences between 2 different students going to two different schools, it's what would be the likely outcome of the same student going through two different schools.
Read the whole article, instead of cotton picking what you want to believe.
I did, which is why I stated that
so ALL the other studies mentioned are wrong but this one with a different outcome just happens to be the correct one?
referring too.
Don't you think it's even a little suspicious that the methodology in all the other studies which largely point to the same conclusion is considered incorrect but his (who now conveniently works in the catholic education system) is right?
@tryagain: ‘Removing’ socioeconomic barriers is disengenous for two reasons:
That’s not the real world, there are socio economic barriers and you simply will not have someone from the 0.1% going to a public school. The data is flawed.
Socio economic barriers is the PC way of saying gene pool. Smart parents produce smart kids, dumb parents produce dumb kids. Smart parents are more often than not wealthy, dumb parents are more often than not poor. It’s an unbreakable cycle that has existed as long as man kind has. Of course children from similar socio economic backgrounds produce similar results. They share similar intelligence.
@Burnertoasty:Right, so socioeconomic factors shouldn't be considered in how schools perform? That goes against what all the experts say, included the one you linked too. The differance between him and the others is basically to what extent it effects the outcome. It's basically saying that a school who takes a student with mediocre academic abilities and turn out someone with above average results is better than a school who takes a naturally gifted and talented student but only turns out well above average student, the second school has the better end test result, but the first school has made the bigger differance.
@tryagain: Yes, end results are all that matters. This is a fundamental principal of our high school system, right or wrong.
@Burnertoasty: You are well and truly entitled to that opinion, for you, it is then safe to assume that the best schools are selective government schools as they outscore independent schools who outscore catholic schools who outscore general public schools, I do however think the vast majority will disagree with you.
@Burnertoasty:
"Read the whole article, instead of cotton picking what you want to believe."
I think you have, in tarnation, mistaken cotton and cherries.
@tryagain: I didn't say I agreed with the system, but that is the system, you can't argue against that. I think the UK system of university entry is far superior, but here in Australia, your 12 years of schooling boils down to a single number. It is what it is.
@tryagain: it's important to remember you are arguing which ever way over standardised testing . Unfortunately or fortunately such a need to rank and commoditise does not reflect on the erratic nature of intellect over time (as oppposed to point in time tests) nor does the ability to regurgitate grammatical rules or solving quaidratics prove a worthwhile replacement for human potential /emotional intelligence and well being. Striving for improvement or debating private v public is laced with social norms and cues. I guess there is no answer but your own to this debate…statistics and data don't deserve your vitriol
melbourne high is selective …. they take the best students for year 11 and 12 via exam in year 10 , they will not take more than 5% from a school so that all the achievers aren’t leached from a particular school so,you need to not just be the best in the state, you need to be the best in your school …… so for year 11 and 12, they have syphoned off some of best of the best BUT not ALL of the best as they take no more than 5% from a single school., so public schools have a good chance … so bad school, smart kid, private tutors would give your kid a better chance to get in via that 5% cap compared to him being in a private school full of over achievers and he is the 6%.
As I have mentioned in my previous comment:
If you are sufficiently involved, then it doesn't matter whether the school is public or private.
Consciously choosing a school for your child (be it private or public) is itself being "involved" with your child's education.
All parents who send their child to a catholic or public school would have made a conscious choice to do so.
The same cannot be said about kids in public schools. For some parents, school is nothing more than a glorified daycare centre.
So, students in public schools will on average produce lower ATARs purely because there are kids who shouldn't be doing Year 12 in the first place. These kids greatly skew the results produced by public school students. Let's just say, if you can't count beyond 10 or read a short passage, you probably shouldn't be doing Year 12. (And yes, there are 18 year old kids out there who can't count beyond 10.)
ask yourself too do you want your kids being brainwashed by religion as well.
I think this is a valid point, particularly given the stance of the Catholic church on Same Sex Marriage. Then again we used to have Religious Instruction at my public primary school when I was a kid and the teacher didn't like it when I tried to get her to clarify some of the stuff she was telling us. Religious schools can be the cheaper option but they can come with a "price".
I went to a catholic school and this couldn't be further from the truth. Sure we had to do classes about religion but it was never forced onto us, Some of my teachers who taught religion weren't even religious.
Agree. I sent my daughter to a private Catholic girls college for her high school education (she went to a publicprimary school and we were very lucky, it was a really good one). We weren't in any way religious, or even Catholic. Religion wasn't shoved down her throat or forced on her. Whatever she learnt about values from that school affirmed what she'd learned at home. I believe that the teachers in the private school had higher teaching standards than public school. I don't regret sending her there at all.
My suggestion, if you can afford private education, definitely do it .
@MishyMoo: the studies don’t tend to support your perception on the quality of teachers. Also, I have doubts any religious organisation would run the schools if they didn’t use them as a chance to spread their message wider, small drops of water over time can erode stone. I would worry about the subtext the child is absorbing along with their education. However, your money and your child and most children come out OK whichever option you choose.
My bugbear is if you take Government money you have to follow Government laws, but religious institutions are exempt from this, including their schools.
@try2bhelpful: They do have to follow the governments laws, you might not like the legal exemptions they have but they are written in law. The exemptions are not on what they teach, ie they can't teach creationism in science class, only really exempt in the area's that don't really have a direct outcome on the education, ie an ability too not employ people who don't support the ethos of the school.
Thanks but I think if OP wanted stats he would have sourced Google also.
I guess OP wanted to know about personal experiences which is why he came here, and why I responded with my experience, not stats.
I think it's irrational to think that someone's subjective experience will fit the perfect stat/study.. it's why humans
turn to each other for help, n'est-ce pas?
@tryagain: You have restated exactly my point, they are exempt from laws that apply to other people. The fact that the Government has written in exemptions to general law shows how controlled it is by religious groups. Frankly, I think the laws are worse then creationism, at least that only disadvantages the kids who are sent there. What these schools are teaching these kids is it is OK to disciminate against someone because they are gay, or divorced, or don't follow the Dogma they are being taught. This is not something that should be supported by a tolerant society, and my taxes should definitely not be supporting it. I'm not sure what my views are on God, but I wonder how some of these religious leaders are going to explain themselves when they stand in judgement and try to explain why they were more concerned about what consenting adults were doing in the privacy of their bedrooms, than the children who were being abused by their priests.
@try2bhelpful: Without getting into the semantics of difference between discrimination an differentiation. I think the seperation of church and state is a good thing, but it goes both ways. I don't however think that any school should be teaching that all people aren't of equal worth, if any Christian school is doing this, I think it would go against the common interpretation of scripture. The latter part of your comment I pretty much agree with. I think the Bible even talks about situations like it in general When it says
then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
@tryagain: If the church is saying it will fire teachers who are openly gay and get married, then that is discrimination, not differentation. The problem I have with quoting the Bible is that people "pick and choose" which bits of the Bible they follow. Have a look at the list of things that are considered as forbidden/abominations and show me where Christian churches are pushing the line to ban shellfish and mixed media clothing. I'm not trying to "dis" individual people here; however, it is hard to reconcile that religious institutions are still allowed to teach children given their history of discrimination and child abuse. If the Catholic schools had been run be secular organisations, rather than religious ones, then the head of these organisations would be in prison, let alone still running teaching institution. Imagine how the religious organisations would be reacting by now if a gay organisation had the same history as the Catholic church. Religions are trying to increase their influence by having a cadre of ex students in positions of power. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Hire someone based on their qualifications, or allow me to discriminate against people based on their religion.
@try2bhelpful: I don't disagree with most of what you say in principle, but would make the following points. Yes, some people pick and choose verses and use them incorrectly to make claims that aren't really there when read in context, both Christians and atheists are guilty of this and yes there has been a disproportionately large focus on SSM of late by churches. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has shown that it was government as well, not just religious institutions that were guilty of dealing woefully with their response to the abuse. For the record, I think Christian schools should be free not to hire people who are opposed to their teaching, just like I think the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby should be free not to hire some who believes that SSM shouldn't exist, In general, I think business should be free not to employ people who are diametrically opposed to what they stand for.
@tryagain: The difference is the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby do not have the same exemptions that are afforded to the Churches; if they refused to hire a Catholic/Muslim, etc they would be in trouble. The other issue is the religious entities holds themselves up as the moral compass for a society, so they should be held up to a higher standard than anyone else. The Government's responses were less than stellar, and continue to be so, but I find myself in complete disbelief how organisations that believes in a "higher" power can protect perpetrators at the expense of children. They must realise they are going to Hell and they still don't care - either that or their God will forgive all their sins; which is even more reason for the general public to be protected from them.
I have no issue with people's belief; what is between you and your God is OK by me. What I do have a problem with is the current structure of most of the world's religions; they cause a great deal of damage to innocent people. Freedom of religion also means Freedom from Religion.
@try2bhelpful: I would be more than happy for any organisation to have the right too not employ anyone who is opposed to what they stand for, I think that would be the better change in the law than being able to force any organisation too.
I think everyone should be held to the same standard but can totally understand a greater disbelief in the way churches historically handled abuse given what the should stand for. I can only assume that human nature and self interest was the driving factor in the way all organisations dealt with it, that doesn't in anyway justify it though.
Freedom of religion also means Freedom from Religion.
I totally agree but don't think that it really applies to this situation, no one is forcing anyone too send people's kids to Christian schools, every one has the freedom to choose, if it was the only choice then it would be a different story, but it's not. Everyone is free not to send their Kids to one.
@tryagain: You may be happy to give organisations the right to discriminate against people, but I don't agree with you. This pathway leads back to segregation and ghettoing of certain races/groups because they aren't part of the "right" people. Catholics used to have a very hard time getting jobs, even for Government positions.
The OP asked if he should send his child to a Private School, and I am just raising some relevant points around organisations that run many of the Private Schools in Australia. Unfortunately it is not freedom from religion for the people who are affected by the perpetuation of discrimination against them; including the teachers who can't get employment. Pupils learn this discrimination through the policies of the schools; they are education by example and partially funded by tax payers.
There is no freedom from religion in this country whilst the religions have such a hold over Government policy and religious schools are part of the process. There are laws based around religious beliefs, that apply to all Australians whether they believe in the religion or not. Same sex marriage is a great example, polls have shown the vast majority of Australians have been for this for some time, but the influence of the church held this at bay as long as they could, including using their schools as a way to send out their message of discrimination.
I want to send a big thank-you to the schools that refused to buckle to the hierarchy and put natural justice before doctrine. They will probably pay a heavy price for this.
there are jewish, hindu and students of other faiths at some christian schools ( as was the case with my nephews’ school) … you aren’t excluded based on your religion, you might just not like all the subjects if they are against your beliefs at home ….. but you aren’t excluded from enrolling….. christmas and easter is celebrated at my sons’ school as it’s a christian school but kid seems don’t have to believe in it as neither do parents.
I'd would send my kid to any school that doesn't brainwashed them into believing being cat today and being butterfly tomorrow is NORMAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sPj8HhbwHs&ab_channel=VICE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAwIYWwoCbs&ab_channel=RTDoc…
Also going to these types of schools supports religion. Why do people keep sending their children there despite the known pedophilia in catholic schools?
i went to public and we had a paedophile who given fame by Darren Hinch ….
paedophiles aren’t limited to religious schools but are also govt schools …… you just don’t hear as much about it because you can get an out or court settlement from a private school but try to sue the gov … much harder.
Public schools are guilty of brainwashing the opposite.
Religion isn't in the public school curriculum.
There are quite a few committed Christians working in high needs area of public schools…not because their ability to brainwash children but due to a desire to serve and help. I'm not a Christian but I wanted to point out some teachers at my school I have the utmost respect for were there because of their ability to make a change …my senior English teacher had special ed classes, literacy and numeracy junior classes on another line…she was an intellectual giant and a phenomenal individual. You don't have to go along with an institution's doctrine to work there…in fact it takes a certain degree of courage to be the change …she was one of those people and I doubt any 'Christian' in a 'Christian' school could stack up to her with how she conducted her life
FYI, religion isn't forced onto students. It wasn't even back when I was at school.
Lol I wouldn't call it brainwashing.
I went to a private school 7-12, my family are Catholic (kind of, but not really churchgoers and the rest). Even with being surrounded by it all my life, I can still make my own choices. And I have.
I think fundamentally, religion has provided me with good morals but I'm not blind enough to suddenly drop to my knees and count my rosary beads each night just because someone told me I should.
If you aren't a catholic, you can still go to a catholic school. Religion classes were a cross between history and politics. Neither of them interested me, so I wasn't swayed. Learning about other religions in Year 11 & 12 - due to SOR - was interesting though, or perhaps it only was because I needed to be good at it.
My favourite part of going to a Catholic school was tormenting the religion teacher by asking him all sorts of awkward questions and constantly interrupting him and asking, "but what about X?" where X was a contradictory bible verse or similar to what he had just said. I feel kind of bad about it now but gee it was fun at the time.
Lol I couldn't say I was that interested, but if I was I would've been the "but why?" kid.
Whatever makes it fun I guess :)
Ask you self this question do you want your son/daughter they are not a boy or girl and that having a sex change is normal?
Not all private schools are created to be a factory for bible bashing zealots.
I spent 6 years at an Anglican school, we learned about the bible an hour a week, and said a prayer and had a reading at the start of assemblies, but other than that it was never really mentioned or bought up. We were also taught about evolution and the big bang and all that jazz in the standard way, it was just reconciled with the bible by telling us that the book is not to always be taken literally and was a set of stories to be used as a guide on how to be a good person.
You can get indoctrination from some public schools too.
A bit of a conservative beat up, but:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=School+3Rs%3A+Reading%2C+…
UK is much worse:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4194048/KATIE-HOPKIN…
http://www.afr.com/news/most-top-ceos-privately-educated-sur…
Two-thirds of the Australian chief executives of the biggest 100 companies attended private schools
https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/12/16/beware-cabinet-really-i…
a Crikey survey by Dylan Barber finds 82% of the cabinet went to private schools.
I an not surprised by that Cabinet statistic. If you spend any time with modern Ministerial staffers (I’ve had thirty years of it) they are all cut from the same cloth: ALP are all greasy little guys with thick, dark rimmed glasses who think they are players; and aggressively confident princesses who aren’t afraid to put down the greasy little guys because patriarchy. Ironically they all went to the right private schools and went on to the student union at uni where they get assigned patronage from a faction. Old labor they ain’t. The liberals of course are cookie cutter exactly the same with the minor differences being the greasy little guys tend to also be a bit pudgy, the aggressive confident princesses might have slightly better teeth, and they join young liberals at uni.
I reckon you're the real deal. You have them perfectly described.
The ones who didn't are possibly better ceo's and politicians …not that the benchmarks would be too high
Personal opinion: both so he has perspective when he grows up also maybe larger social network which during school imho was the most fun for me.
The more activities he has or does like tutoring and sports and stuff the more people he will encounter and meet and add on facebook yada yada. Imho at the end of the day the more connections you make in life opens up new possibilities and perspectives but ultimately you will have your own shell or comfort zone but he may become less jaded when he grows up.
I don't know what I am talking about. Do what you think is fun.
If you go with a NSW Public School, the student (cough, cough, you) will get Adobe Suite free
'once you correct for socioeconomic advantage, even the most expensive schools add nothing to educational outcome.' http://www.smh.com.au/comment/elizabeth-farrelly-why-private…
'Wealthy parents flock to public schools' http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/wealth…
There is also an interesting comment section at the bottom of the Elizabeth Farrrelly article.
There is a reason why Sydney Morning Herald is called smh.
Public school up until secondary (year 7+) where I'd recommend private. Only had finished my VCE a few years back - was in public schooling up until year 9 where I decided to transfer to school around the corner; that being a Catholic school. Massive difference - I'd be a completely different person if I hadn't of transferred and not for the better I reckon.
P.S. not religious at all, still not. Hated having religious studies at the time but some of teachings are fairly related to teaching better morals.
Go to wherever is convenient for you. At the end of the day, if education is all you're after, it's all about the student's hard work. The final mark your child gets isn't about whether they're the genius or if they had the best teacher/school, but rather who put in more effort and toil.
I'd argue that having good teachers help. Problem is that all schools have their share of good and bad teachers, regardless of private or public.
This -"Hated having religious studies at the time but some of teachings are fairly related to teaching better morals." with reinforcement from you at home.
A good school can help encourage and provide the means for a child to perform. But that's IF your child wants to learn.
If you can make an honest assessment of how your child is at this point in time (I do realise that your child is still quite young), then you can make a judgement call on whether you think it'll be worth it.
For a child that seems to enjoy school and wants to learn, then go ahead and give them the best environment you can afford.
For a child who doesn't want to go to school or doesn't want to learn, a public school or a $50K/year school isn't going to be much different. It'll be a case of "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
For primary school, a public school might be sufficient for the first couple of years where you can seek regular feedback from his teachers. Then you can make an assessment of whether your son has everything he needs at school to do his best or whether it's worthwhile sending him to a private school.
I went to a public school in primary school and I topped the class pretty much every year. My teachers were good and they sort permission to accelerate me - in which they did. They had further conversations as I was coming to high school, but my parents simply couldn't afford to pay private school fees. All that was over when I made it into a selective school. Selective schools provide students with the environment and tools to help a child who wants to learn.
There are options other than private schools. The biggest factor is, how is your child?
what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger