"Average income, private school", complete tool.

Average-to-low income earners provide the best opportunity for their child by:

A) Creating a savings account, and putting in $5,000 a year for each year they are in high school, and allowing them to put a deposit on a house/car as soon as they have a stable job - relieving them from the trauma of trying to save while renting or, shock/horror, living at home.
B) Spending $30,000 over the childs education period on a multitude of extra-curricula tutoring, training, short or specialty courses.
C) Saving $30,000 to build an investment portfolio you hand to them when they're 18 (and make decisions collectively until that point.)
D) Any mix of the above - $10k for house/car, $10k for extra-curricula, $10k for investment.
E) Send them to a private secondary school because of some perceived notion of any benefit.

There is a natural obsession with giving your child the best start in life. This is especially true with low income earners in unpleasant jobs, some immigrants and I'd imagine practically all refugees - they want their child to have an easier life than theirs. I can understand the incentive for sending your child to private school - but the alternatives (above, A-D) are so obviously more beneficial.

And: Know your place, you pov-o's! Stay down there in pov-land, your child is going to be ostracised from the rich kids, will resent you and anything related to wealth, they deal in the expensive drugs at private schools (cocaine vs weed), secondary education means sweet fuck all in the real world anymore in these days of Pokémon uni-degrees "gotta-catch-pass-em-all", jobs-for-the-boys does not extend to you, a given mark has a greater meaning coming from a public school, and there is no benefit in schools that spend most of their resources in looking shiny.