…In thinking that parents would welcome cheaper, less flashy private schools

a state school without state school kids? that’s what you’re saying right?

I think your points are fascinating, OP. It’s the main reason we didnt opt for private for my dc2 - in our area, state schools are quite good. Yes, 27 or 28 in a class in primary and 30 at secondary. But I can pay for all the extra curriculars we might ever need locally, and our state schools have invested their own and PTA funds well (we are a bit unusual with an affluent primary school that has great IT and outdoor learning and sports provision).

So what am I buying if I go private? The main thing is good behaviour, I think (some local state schools put up with ludicrous poor behaviour).

Now if someone offered me a private school that had AMAZING maths, science and engineering provision then I might sit up and listen. My son would love a school that taught him to code for Roblox, technical Lego and helped him build large structures in wood, or learn karting and maintenaance of engines for example.

Yes, but the average funding for state schools has to cover a lot of children with various kinds of needs, difficult family situations etc. A no-frills private school could actually undercut that substantially if they essentially were there to teach kids who don't need a lot of special support.

In Japan, we have some very affordable Indian international schools, mostly used by Indian expats here (software engineers, things like that) who are middle class but not getting massive expat packages, so they need private English (and Hindi) medium schools that do the job but are affordable. Their facilities are a little skimpy, but they do the job just fine and the kids academically do very well.

If parents just want the academics and a functional safe environment with decent behavior, private schools can actually offer them pretty cheaply because the schools do not need to serve a "social worker" role.

For example, if you are serving functional middle class families who can be trusted to put their kids into swimming lessons at the weekend anyway, there is no need to provide swimming lesson provision (whereas a state school kind of has to do this - a lot of the parents won't bother with getting their child to swim or lack easy access to a pool, so you risk ending up with huge numbers of non-swimming children at risk of drowning unless you provide some swimming instruction. I'm just using this as an example, but there are other things).

I think the market for this in the UK is limited, though, because as mentioned, the way that the UK housing market works generally means that it is a better deal to buy a property near a good state school and then pay for some tutoring on top, rather than use a cheap private school.

One was religious and one was a classical curriculum. The whole set up was 3 days in person school, then parents supervised the rest at home. But a set curriculum and all the social perks of school life. The parents seemed really involved with the schools.

@coupdetonnerre

Yes it's economically viable.

Yes, because it's government subsidised. Which is completely different from the UK. I can just imagine what private school haters on here would say about taxpayer money being given to parents to educate their dc privately

This sounds like a wonderful school! You were so lucky to have that on your doorstep

I am with you OP. I also left school around 35 years ago. My father was a "skilled" blue collar worker and my mother worked in admin part time. They sent me to private school. I'll have to check what they paid, but I seem to recall that it wasn't more than a month or so of his salary (maybe less) , which in today's money would be £3,000-£4,000 per year! All the girls in our school were the daughters of blue collar workers too ! The professional ones went to the slightly more expensive High School lol
I got a brilliant education but there were no bells and whistles. To be fair, it might have been better with a few more bells and whistles but it was affordable!!

Not sure how the hybrid model works in reality, unless 2 children 'share' a place in school? Otherwise a child attending 3 days would be taking up a complete space, but would the school be getting only 60% of the funding, with the family getting the other 40% to pay for tutors etc? Interesting concept though, I don't think my child learns much on Fridays through a combination of being tired herself and I'm sure the teachers are pretty exhausted too. A 4 day week with fewer weeks school holidays (so same amount of teaching but spread over the year) would probably be really beneficial. Less burnout and sickness for staff and children and more efficient learning.

I’ve also seen homeschoolers arguing that there should be the same allowance a school place costs to pay for tutors, exam fees, online high school etc.
I used to follow a few Americans who used a hybrid type school so part home education part school based. I could see that type of 3 day week provision being popular and rest at home to fit around hobbies or family commitments or for health reasons.

*not really private

@Escapaid

I'm just telling it how it is. Didn't say I had the formula for how it works.
But you said 'it can be done' for £1000 per year. Well sure it can. When it's subsidised by the government. So it really private school then is it

They must be government subsidised. No way would a school run on fees of £1000 per year per student

Grammars showcase your point and are always in the top of the league table. All free to the wealthy.

Our school isn't flashy at all. I went to school abroad and the school my children now go to is similar to that. It just offers what any good secondary school should offer.

Absolutely agree with you, but legally all children are entitled to receive an education, so state schools will say its just pushing the problem from one school to another by excluding children.

As with many British things, it's a race to the bottom approach. Supportive parents apparently must be spread around all schools to make up for the ones who are not engaged. Just like well behaved children are sat with less well behaved ones in hope it will improve their behaviour, when often all it does is pull down/limit the better behaved child.

State schools could be as good as private ones if it they had the same exclusionary options.

I didn’t actually pay money until yr 1 for my dc. Reception we paid for her school fees in childcare vouchers (you used to be able to take £240 of your salary a parent tax free) plus she got the nursery funding as she was under official school starting age.
Current fees for the school are £8500 a year so if parents got £7460 state voucher then only topping up £1000 would be very attractive. We saved more than that not needing wrap around as it had a longer day and on being able to holiday outside state school hols.
My colleague has children there now (moved from state)and is amazed at difference eg small class size. Yet it’s only costing a £1000 a year more than state provision.

I agree totally but I think it's time we stopped the wealthy gaming the system with grammars paid for by the state. They should pay for their selective schooling if they want it so much. Just put it back in the pot.

Average funding for state schools is £7460 per pupil this year, so presumably a private school would struggle to be able to undercut that, even running with class sizes the same as in the state sector.

You're right, though - bringing down the costs of private education would probably make (some) state schools even more likely to be "sink schools".

In fact, what you describe is not so very different from having some state schools with engaged non-disruptive intakes and catchments that cost parents several thousand extra to live in.

A voucher based system like you describe is used in low off European countries.

Ironically putting VAT on school fees is only possible due to Brexit. I wonder if the leftists in favour of this policy are prepared to admit it's a Brexit benefit.