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

If we subsidised private schools (as they do in many European countries) say £x per British pupil then it would happen.

It would also be cost neutral in the medium term and boost education. You'd get lots more of the type of schools that you're suggesting.

But that involves sensible policies, not the politics of envy and short-sightedness.

Just get grammar parents to pay for their selective schools - it's effectively what you've described.

It depends on what parents are and are not prepared to pay for.

Some parents, actually most private school parents in the UK, probably consider “lovely facilities and small class sizes” the main reasons to pay for private school; if a private school didn’t offer these, they simply won’t pay for private school fees, and would instead put their money into purchasing a property in the catchment area of a very good state school and into tutoring.

I have however seen niche cases where parents might be prepared to pay for a low-cost private school - basically, in cases where for whatever reason the only state school available is full of disruptive behavior or other issues. Parents who are not able to move might consider paying for a private school that offers class sizes and facilities similar to a state school but where decent behavior can be expected. Probably only during the 11-16 age group; before that age, disruptive behavior is less extreme and it’s easier for parents to make up for dodgy classroom schooling by providing good support at home, and after that age, you are into sixth form and the worst kids have left. And probably best suited to big cities with good public transport like London, where secondary kids can commute and you could therefore attract families from quite a wide geographical area.

Generally speaking, though, I don’t think there is much market for this type of schooling in the UK because of the way the housing market works; people who are not filthy rich generally find it more worthwhile to sink money into property near good state schools because property has always been considered such a good way to invest money in the UK.

Agreed.

My school is 3x the cost when I left (15 years ago ish).

The physical school is completely unrecognisable to the one I attended.

The local prep school is struggling for pupils AFAIK and is currently knocking down the main building to put up a new one.

They obviously think that this is what attracts parents.

But surely most people chose private partly as it buys you a different demographic of students and parents? Not just for academics and sports.
Lowering the cost kind of loses that and any old riff raft can join!

Private schools in France are heavily state subsidised.

Teachers are paid for by the state and there are also contributions from local authorities. The parental contribution is just a small top up.

Compare that to the hysteria we see in the UK with people erroneously claiming private schools are subsidised by the state sector. They’d have a fit if we adopted the French model.

@whynosummer - absolutely. I went to private school because my parents could stretch to the termly fees, but could never find the huge lump sum needed to move us into the catchment of the better state schools. If we’d been richer I’d have gone to state school.

One barrier is that you'd need to set it up such a school from scratch so would probably lose money until the school was full and that could take a long time as new schools generally fill from the bottom rather than launching all years simultaneously. You'd need to be really sure the demand was there. Also you'd still need to charge VAT and you'd have to pay out your investors around 5-10% p.a. which would compress your margins somewhat.

I think it's doable but it would need to be launched with a lot of planning and forethought as to the model and location (would probably need to be a chain to get the economies of scale for admin etc). I think it would probably also work best at secondary level only.

Id rather have decent state schools for everyone.

My kids go to a private school and the fees (for secondary only, two children) are just over a third of what we would need to add to the value of our house to buy a comparable house in the catchment area of the outstanding school in my large town (not that we could get a mortgage that big!).

Lots of middle income families can afford private school, some with some family help, but only the highest earners can be assured of a home in the catchment areas of the best schools. I suppose it’s an example of needing to be very rich to save money (Grimes Boot Theory).

There is a school like this neat me. Runs in a converted high street building costs something like £300 a month doesn't have the facilities of most private schools but does have small class sizes. However, the leadership team are mainly people who have been involved in failing schools in the past (free schools etc) and staff retention is terrible. I worked in education for many years and no way would I send my kids there.

I think there are a few less swanky private schools with lower fees. However they're probably going to be the first to go to the wall, because part of the reason parents have chosen them will be affordability.

Wrap-around care is important for very many families, especially those who need both parents working full-time to afford the fees. Take away the wrap-around care and you significantly bump up the overall costs for those families.

If you don't offer a good range of A-levels, you will just lose students to other providers, state or private.

Facilities - they've already got the land, they may make quite a bit of money out of hiring the facilities out of term.

Having said that, I'm sure there are lots of savings that could be made. Maybe we'll see that when the VAT change comes in, particularly in the less expensive establishments.

In that case this school is running on half the average per head state school budget with class sizes 50% smaller than a state school. It's the school equivalent of a MN chicken.

Also to not increase fees for 20 years despite inflation just wouldn't work.

They must have another source of income like a charitable/ religious endowment fund.

When my youngest started school we chose private primarily because of the hours. At the time none of our local state primaries had any kind of wraparound care and normal school hours were just not compatible with my work. But other than that, apart from being in a lovely old house with extensive grounds it didn't offer a lot more than state, so I guess it might fit your "no frills" model. It closed some years ago, predominantly because a lot of parents (us included) realised that it didn't represent very good value for money. It was a perfectly good school and my DC were happy there. There was nothing "wrong" with it, but 3 lots of even relatively low school fees add up to lots of money and we just weren't getting enough over and above our local state schools to justify that expense, especially once some of the state schools started breakfast and after school clubs. So we moved, along with lots of other parents in similar positions and the school went under. I can think of at least 2 other similar schools in our area who have gone the same way in recent years.
Admittedly we have very good state provision where we are which obviously has a big influence. In areas with poor state schools there may be more of a demand for the kind of schools you describe but you still need a critical mass of parents with that amount of money available. Since more affluent areas tend to have better state schools anyway it seems unlikely that there would be many areas where it would work. And you'd need the pupils to be fairly local as otherwise adding the cost of travel would price out people who can only just afford the fees.
It seems to me that at the moment it is smaller, less expensive independents that are struggling whilst the really high end ones continue to thrive so adding more at "entry level" is unlikely to work.

Many Gdst schools in the past were as you describe op. Im not sure if that’s the case now

Not necessarily- what is getting lost in the debate is that in addition to private to state, some parents will chose "expensive private to cheaper private" especially where there is an existing hierarchy of private options and very varying state options (where there are good and bad schools and the good ones are oversubscribed). I am definitely seeing this in the leavers' destinations at my DC's primary school this year

I think no frills private (say for sake or argument 10k a year incl. VAT) would actually work as a business model, especially for secondary and especially if the schools can implement something like a 4 day in-person week through use of technology and more independent study. However, I think it would actually increase educational inequality because one way to make a cheap model work is to remove anything that costs you extra money, like kids with additional needs or who aren't keeping pace and need extra support. It would expand affordability whilst at the same time reducing accessibility to certain demographics.

Don't be persuaded that they are non profit making entities, there's many a way to disguise profit distribution!

Also it's a facilities arms race, to get the well heeled parents to sign up you once needed a field and a gym, then a small pool, then a 25m pool now I see Olympic sized pools being talked of, a local school is bragging about stables, shooting, then there's the theatre and music programme, and recently ish they built a boarding house to attract those lucrative overseas students, thus school isn't a big name school, it was set up for distinct purposes and meets none of them now because that very demographic can't afford it!

But surely it's the extra bits that people want?
Have to say the provision during the pandemic was when I felt the fees were justified. I had friends with kids in state school leading up to GCSEs who got a few sheets of work that's it. Mine got a full day of online lessons every day. They even did games - exercises the kids could do in their rooms.
While the quality of education is the number one reason, the other stuff is also valued and strip that away and many may decide it's not worth it.

I went to private school. It was £1300 a term. It still is this price, as I know because my sister is now a teacher there. There are two in my local area which are similar. There was 15 in my class and 30 in my year at its maximum and it was run out of a converted old mansion house in its own grounds. I loved it. The other one is in a series of terraced houses which were knocked through into a larger building in the centre of the city.
Private schools can be affordable if you don’t want all the bells and whistles.

If there was a middle ground where I live between state and Dauntseys at £24k a year, I'd consider it.

To add in the school has a small garden and so pays the local primary to use their swimming pool, the secondary school to use their sports hall etc.

Newbutoldfather, it’s the annual fee. Beats me how they do it too.