To think if you can no longer afford school fees...

Singe Mum here-one in state and one in private, both schools suit each DC and both are thriving, one is not better than the other.
DC in private school was so badly bullied failing everything and a shadow of the child he now is.I now face having to send him back to the school he left with the children who bullied him, who are now bigger and nastier.

Some of us made a choice in the best interest of our children, would have preferred as a single mother that I did not pay school fees but my child was suffering badly. Child in state school is thriving and v happy -mature enough to understand that each are getting a great education and has seen the difference the school has made to sibling-no more bruises, tears and a happy sibling.

OP - and the rest of those who have an irartional hatred of private schools- grow up. I choose to spend my monies on making my children happy and educated in different ways - my monies, my choice-I sacrifice thigns for this choice but it is my choice, it is not a luxury, it was a necessity for my child physical and mental health

Not to mention the grandparents who are being gouged by their own families for fees for grandchildren - what if granny suddenly needs care, medical bills come in? Or just want to be able to afford to enjoy their own retirement …

Private schools are and have been for a LONG time taking the absolute piss with parents - annual increases of 5/6/7 even 10 % increases.
a LOT of the commentary from Private parents acknowledges this - it’s all I cannot afford VAT on top of the increases that schools have Been charging us…

I reckon Labour are doing private school parents - particularly the ‘strivers’ as they like to call themselves - a favour by getting them out of this absolute RACKET of overcharging of something that should be free to every child.

@Dibblydoodahdah

I have said I feel sorry for those who might be threatened.

I have also said that PE parents have been massively over playing the amount that are, and for many, just how necessary PE is.

No one should have to stretch themselves so far to get a good education, but there is a massive need to invest in state education so that the vast majority, who do not even have that choice, manage to get the service they need too.

Rather than people destroying their finances, relationships and mental health to pay for something that they can’t afford and don’t need - you could just send your kids to normal schools and have the grandparents save their money for their old age…

If you are genuinely a private school teacher then you are a disgrace. Some people have no choice but to “pay as you go” and hope that their income rises in line with the school fee increases because that’s the only way that they can make sure that their DC gets an education that meets their needs. I had a suicide attempt as a result of years at a completely unsuitable school that destroyed me bit by bit. That’s why I have compassion for those who are extremely worried about having to move their DC when they are happy and settled in a school.

"The grandparents had indeed factored in cost of school fees should they die before the children completed their education."

But a 15% increase breaks the bank?

As said, this wasn't well planned then.

‘I know a few families with kids in the private schools. None are rich. 3 are paid for by grandparents. They will be leaving as grandparents can’t afford the extra cost for the length of time remaining. Another is on a sports bursary. Again he will be leaving so can kiss goodbye to the elite partnerships with international placements that his school could offer.

The other 2 are paid for by 8 figure salary absent dad. ‘

I’m a bit confused - which part of this tale of privilege are we suppose to sympathise with? The grandparents wealthy enough to pay school fees in their retirement? The children of the multi millionaire fathers?
The school that values their athlete so much that they’re willing to dump his bursary and cut him loose despite the obvious glory he can bring the school?

Or is the awful AWFUL simply AWFUL fact that these children may have to go to a normal school, where the majority of children go to?

And just quickly the ‘ 8 figure salary ‘ dads… VAT of FEES are going to tip them into ‘ well, I know I earn 10 mill a year but if I have to pay another £4K a year for Jacinta’s fees that’ll be a stretch’ territory?? Weird?
Oh, and the sports boy - good news there, normal schools do have sports and if he’s good enough, he’s good enough and will no doubt excel anywhere.

“ due to the demographic of the kids “

unless you’re filthy rich - and from the majority of the posts on MN apparently most private school kids are in fact just the offspring of ‘strivers’ and those who ‘sacrifice’- your children are in fact going to have to mix with normal people once they leave their ivory towers.

And not just as their staff, they will have to work ALONGSIDE non-privately educated people as their equal.

I realise this may send shivers of fear down the spines of ‘hardworking ‘ parents who have ‘prioritised’ their children’s education but unfortunately it is very likely that they will
mix with all demographics of children, eventually… so perhaps private school is not giving your speshal child the advantages you think?

Apart from the kids with the rich dad in the post I tagged you in.

If I wasn’t clear in that post, their dad is a ridiculously high earner. They aren’t going to suffer at all as nothing will change for them. Like all the other kids from wealthy families.

That’s a lot of supposition. The grandparents had indeed factored in cost of school fees should they die before the children completed their education. They are more likely to die doing extreme sports than of old age by then! They are only in their 60s!

But isn't it funny that nobody knows anyone who is just going to pay the extra, who are by far the vast majority involved?

Also, I'm really sorry to say this, but anyone relying on grandparental help who would be unable to bridge a gap if circumstances changed was very much risking this anyway. Grandparents might die and have not made this a stipulation of a will, they may fall ill and need expensive care. There are actually a whole host of reasons why this sort of arrangement might not work out fully during a child's education.

It is unfortunate, and sad for the small minority of children it will impact, but no one is exempt from being impacted by government policies.

Just sharing personal experience. Obviously people I care about.

@AllThePotatoesAreSinging

Ah mischaracterising the argument and using selective minority examples are really, really great ways of debating eh?

More carefully characterized stories to fit the narrative?

No, they aren’t ‘awash’. There are 8 private schools within about 10 miles of me. A couple of oversubscribed outstanding state schools. Mostly special measures academies.

I know a few families with kids in the private schools. None are rich. 3 are paid for by grandparents. They will be leaving as grandparents can’t afford the extra cost for the length of time remaining. Another is on a sports bursary. Again he will be leaving so can kiss goodbye to the elite partnerships with international placements that his school could offer.

The other 2 are paid for by 8 figure salary absent dad. They will always live a life without wanting for anything. Mum is a nurse so if he starts pissing about with child support, which he has in the past, this will become a problem.

So no, not awash, but will be far fewer working class students in future.

This might not bother you but as a former teacher I know that the line that kids are resilient is a load of bullshit. They aren’t. Change is hard. This is going to damage their education.

But as long as the have nots get to stick it to the haves, that’s the most important thing.

I’m not saying it’s ok - I just mean that it becomes even more exclusive. Anyway it doesn’t matter because we all know labour is highly likely to win the election and they will not be changing their minds on this policy so instead of people getting nasty we just all need to work out what we are going to do.

“we will start to see the highest ranks in industry filled by the old boys clubs? “

We already have that in all sectors hence parents overstretching themselves to pay for private education. The fact that these same parents think it’s ok when they are part of the club but not ok when they join the majority and expect support is ludicrous

You realise private schools have smaller classrooms to accommodate smaller number of pupils so not as simple as just saying make the classes bigger. It’s also why the schools that shut down will likely sit empty for a long time as there will be little demand for the buildings with educational use. I guess over time they will be bought up as bargains and converted to more flats.

the arguments on here are very simplistic from many people. I think a lot of the parents that move children out of private schools, and a lot of the schools that close will be the parents and schools dealing with pupils who are not typical private school children (ie not really as wealthy as a lot of people seem to think) - many of these will try to make homeschooling work rather than put their children into the big comps that were failing them.

its way too early to see how people will cope and what decisions they will make to do that - homeschooling groups so parents can continue working part time, giving up jobs and downsizing property, moving to state when it’s an option of course but undoubtedly the big impact will be that a private education moves back to be only for the super wealthy - does that mean we will start to see the highest ranks in industry filled by the old boys clubs? Who knows but not unlikely really - it’s like winding the clock backwards so not sure why we would expect a different outcome.

I am glad that overall you’re doing well. I agree it is a privilege to have a healthy child. My dd wasn’t always so affected by her medical condition so albeit it was in the background when little, it wasn’t such a worry as she was protected but adults. Now she has to safeguard herself more and more and it’s hard for her. I am trying my best for her thanks. X

@squirrelnutkin10 ,

Well it won’t, will it? If a pupil has more pupils, the government will give it more money and it can employ more teachers.

Regardless of how many pupils move sectors, there will be the same numbers of pupils and the same number of teachers.

The reality will be that it will be tougher for teachers in private schools as they will save money by increasing class sizes, which they have room to do. In the state sector, on the other hand, they will keep classes to 30 and the finances will be a little better (which makes life easier for teachers in a number of ways) as the fixed costs (SLT, HR, buildings etc) will be spread over more pupils.

To think if you can no longer afford school fees... 613 replies

TiredMumE · 13/06/2024 19:54
that is tough.

Yep and it will be even tougher for teachers and existing pupils who have to deal with more pupils in the state sector, as always it will be in the poorer areas that both children and teachers will suffer.

The politics of envy.

If it’s not about ideology, why are you so pro a policy that will raise minimal revenue and possibly none? Why does the EU ban VAT on education? Why don’t most developed countries charge VAT on education? It’s pure ideology.

Lots and lots of state providers, including many of the large state VI firm colleges, were offering IB ten years ago - it was a big selling point for many VI form colleges, in fact. (Up to half of the state applicants to my university course were IB at one point.) After Gove, most state providers stopped offering it - though some still do. Importantly, languages are a key part of the IB.

@ChocolateFinger222

The point on languages, since the government made it not compulsory to take languages it is much harder to fund it for a school.

Even in state schools where the % who sit the EBac is relatively high at 70% ( this is much higher than national average) this still means that 30% of kids in year 10 and 11 don't take a language. That means languages get less funding than cores subjects.

At A level the take up is even lower, language classes often run at far lower numbers than would be allowed in social sciences or humanities ( a sore point for some). Therefore they cost far more to deliver per student.

Exactly. IB is easily available in the state system in our area. Didn’t suit any of my children re learning styles or what they wanted to do though. The Alevel focus was preferable.

I don’t think schools prioritise drama, its just it can be more popular. There is no point in students studying languages if they don’t want to and they won’t be useful.

But you made it out to be school's choice, not the DofE.

"Ten years ago lots of state schools offered IB: "

No they didn't, not in the state.

IB has major flaws too as students who are good all rounders do well, where as students who are very good in one or a few subjects but struggle in others do not. Neither system is perfect.

"Which is more ideologically “deserving”? Which is more “state” and which more “private”? The situation these days is more complicated than most posters think of when they imagine the division between state and private sector."

You are getting a bit confused here and creating points for your own ends.

The state is free at the point of service, the private is not, private school parents make a choice to privately educate, as a purchase this is something that should carry VAT.

It isn't about ideology.

You’re proving the point - if the DfE prioritised languages, schools would provide them. At the moment they prioritise subjects that are cheap and popular (eg. Drama). We could decide differently. We could make languages compulsory again. Ten years ago lots of state schools offered IB: now few do. And MATs and academies have a lot of additional choice over what they offer. These are all choices.

The way schools are funded and run now is very different to the way most posters imagine. Consider a secondary in a large MAT like United Learning, with a new building. Many of its staff and functions are bought in from private contractors (cleaning, maintenance, etc.) Their sports facilities are run by a private company which offers them to the public as a leisure club out of hours, so that the children can’t use them then. There’s a nursery on site which is leased to a private for-profit company. After school clubs and provision are outsourced to another for-profit company. Teachers in PE and minority subjects rotate around several nearby schools in the MAT, which runs its own practice-based PGCE across the Trust.

Now compare with a small individual prep school that is run by a small governing body. It has fees under 10k a year and few assets, apart from its one school site and playing fields, which it allows nearby state schools to use free or for a nominal fee as part of its charitable status. It offers 40 percent of students a means-tested bursary of a reduction of between 25 and 110 percent of fees. It employs all its staff direct and has a large pensions cost. It makes no surplus.

Which is more ideologically “deserving”? Which is more “state” and which more “private”? The situation these days is more complicated than most posters think of when they imagine the division between state and private sector.