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

@asterel

It certainly isn;t a choice, and whilst I'm no fan of MATs , I'm frankly horrified that someone that is a trustee thinks this.

You in fact prove me right with your point about PE, yes the DofE made PE a priority, and gave pots of money, that can't be spent elsewhere to fund PE. This doesn't mean its an individual school's choice to spend it over languages. It had to be spent on PE.

Most schools have a drama department because they can offer and fill GCSE drama ( not likely theatre studies) and which ever choice of A level they have. Since languages stopped being compulsory, that has become ever harder to do for most schools, meaning language teachers either double up on teaching 2nd languages, or are deployed to other subjects. As there are language teacher shortages they then migrate to other schools where they are used in faculty full time.

Do you provide for classes of 3? What do you take out instead.

Oh and that's before we get to equity. Why is Tom the History teacher paid exactly the same, and given exactly the same time to teach his A level class of 20, as Mike, who teaches Politics and who has a class of 5? Tom basically subsidises Mike because his subject is more popular.

It is a choice. If the DfE decided it was a priority schools would have to make it one. Years ago PE was underfunded: the DfE decided to direct more money to it and now it’s a priority for many state schools and lots is spent on PE (and PE teachers).

Many MATs (I’m a trustee of one) could easily afford language teachers to rotate around several schools - lots do with music, for example. Drama now gets a lot of resources in state schools: most have a drama teacher and offer theatre studies at GCSE and A-level — this wasn’t the case thirty years ago. Posters here seem to think that schools and school funding are like that were years ago in their youth: not the case.

Many state schools are now academies and often part of big MATs or consortia that are run as charities very like the private sector, some with hundreds of schools and Trust CEOs paid a large amount of money and they make choices about how to spend their funding across many schools, including tendering for private companies to run eg. catering, sometimes tendering nurseries on site to run as profit-making ventures, renting out sports fields and facilities to private companies, etc. etc. They are often run far more like large businesses than you would think - not at all like the local authority single schools of yesteryear that posters imagine when they write about “schools can’t afford” this and that.

We have some outstanding comps and for some they are very good. Unfortunately like most schools however the sen provision is beyond woeful.
Even with a good Senco the teachers don't follow through what they advise, teachers generally don't understand sen at all..
They still don't often in a private school the difference being more accountability, more leverage and smaller classes.

@Mummyoflittledragon thank you. I am so much better now. I still have some very bad days but I am mostly getting on with it.

I am just genuinely grateful every day that my children are healthy. I think that sometimes people forget what a privilege it is to have a healthy child.

it sounds like you are being an amazing support for your DD. It must be so hard, especially with your own health issues. She is lucky to have you.

🙄 No it doesn’t. This is utter projection. It means they’re more ‘village’ and she’s got a lot of anxiety and afraid of a lot of people. Did you see the bit about her having anorexia (as a result of anxiety and her medical condition) and school refusing in her former state?

I am the one, who tried to get her back into state for 6th form ffs… and it wouldn’t be that school as it doesn’t cater for post 16. But she can’t cope.

@ChocolateFinger222

It means that her DD had to associate with the lumpen proletariat.

“ due to the demographic of the kids “

What does that mean? You do realise that in real life young people have to learn to get on with all demographics of people.

"though small private schools whose accounts are much smaller than the average state comp manage to provide these; why not in state? Because it’s a choicenot to."

Its statements like this that annoy people.

It is not a CHOICE for state schools not to provide these lessons, it simply isn't financially viable for schools to run such small classes. Small privates can afford to because they get a lot bigger budget per student, although, I'm wagering you'd be surprised at what small private schools actually can't offer due to the number of students.

"But does that mean we punish kids who are trying to access these with a bit of extra tax?"

Well this is hyperbole. No one is punishing these kids

And yes everyone who posts here has their own special reasons why their child should be exempt from this. Although I think we've finally put to bed the thing on income and sending students to private school.

There are outstanding comps and outstanding comps. The outstanding comp next door to my dd’s private school offers an education and outcome similar to dd’s small private school. Dd might have been ok there due to the demographic of the kids but despite it not being far from our house, she wasn’t in catchment and it is very very oversubscribed. The outstanding comp, which dd went to but didn’t get on has a very different demographic and dd couldn’t cope with the lessons.

We sent her to private in year 9 not to get a better education. We sent her to get an education.

That sounds tough and I’m glad your dd was able to cope. Mine didn’t cope. It isn’t possible to force a child to go to school. There are an alarming number of kids, who haven’t received an education, especially post covid. I have a friend, whose dc is in this situation. The plan for this child is hopefully college in September.

NB I have a friend who is sending her child private, but to a very expensive school. She’s an NHS trauma specialist who operates primarily on people extremely badly injured in car crashes and other kinds of similar trauma (crush injuries, etc). She wants her daughter to become a doctor too (to be fair, kid is very keen). Is it nefarious privilege for her to pay through the nose out of well-earned income doing the kind of job that anyone surely must agree qualifies as desperately needed in society, so that her child can do the same thing saving lives in the NHS? Does it make sense to tax her even more because this is regarded as “privilege”?

Obviously not all private school parents are like this example! But the idea that people all automatically deserve to be punished for paying privately just because they’re buying a “luxury” is simplistic and silly. Why not tax corporate profits a bit more instead? Or people speculating in crypto? Or landlords with big portfolios? Or people running online sites channeling the “sex industry” (OnlyFans, etc)? So many other, much more deserving targets.

Exactly (though small private schools whose accounts are much smaller than the average state comp manage to provide these; why not in state? Because it’s a choice not to.) Fine, you can’t do these subjects in a state school. But does that mean we punish kids who are trying to access these with a bit of extra tax? Because it’s not going to stop the Boris Johnsons or the Westminsters of the independent sector from having those subjects. It simply polarises education further.

But then, so many posters have no idea that you might send your kid private for genuinely academic reasons - eg. that they just won’t get what works for them in the state sector, whether that’s a niche interest or SEN or whatever - rather than some kind of evil “privilege” over everyone else.

"desperate to learn Latin, Greek, Classical Civilization and Italian - and there is zilch, nada, zip of any of those on offer, not in any state school in our local authority."

You'd struggle to find this is most state schools ( although the one I worked at in the 2000s does have classics). Somehwere like Camden School for Girls probably offers it, but the vast majority won't. For an A level to run in most state schools then it means at least 10 students ( if not more in some) have to be interested in taking it. Since the budget cuts came in during the 2010s the offers have been majorly limited due to this.

If there is no A level, assuming one teacher, teaching one class in both Year 12 and Year 13 for 6 periods each. Then there is going to be no option for GCSE or extra after school classes for those who want to do it.

Languages is also one of the hardest to recruit in, the 2000s the school I mentioned before had a 90s title and was still a "language college", so it got extra money to run languages after school too. That stopped in about 2011. If you can't fully employ a teacher for at least 24/30 periods ( assuming a 6 period day), then they either have to be part time, or used elsewhere. Languages teachers are in short supply, so gravitate to where they will be used to teach their contracted hours in their subjects.

In privates, specialist are paid to come in part time, deliver 3-5 lessons a week to small classes. This just cannot be managed at state level anymore.

Just done a calculation for a family, as was highlighted by someone here on about 70k net.

Lowered the council tax from Band H to Band F so about 300 a month ( with a little bit left over).

Mortgage of 1,500.

Apparently this puts them in the 40th percentile ( not sure if this is accurate at all, as this is now mostly discretionary income).

But an income of 928 per week to spend.

After fees for one child at secondary this is totally doable. Gives them 2755 a month to live on.

But again, with two, not at all, as it leaves 1225 PCM, or 289 a week to cover everything else.

Lets throw in the average bursary of 35% for both children so 23,400 a year for both in fees.

This comes out with a monthly left over of 2071, can they afford an extra 146 pounds a month in VAT? This would leave them with, 1925 per month. Maybe, it is very possible.

But this is massively dependent on both children getting bursaries that are the average. They couldn't possibly afford two children at private school. Even with the bursaries, with 2 children and 2 adults working ( without VAT) it could be a significant push.

But the thing is, to get 70k a year after tax both parents have to be earning 32% more each than the average salary of 34k. This makes me question the data on the calculator somewhat.

So in reality, can people on what are more than average incomes afford PE for two children, even with a significant bursary? Yes. Can they afford the VAT rise? Just about. But neither situation leaves much room for error and has significant sacrifices involved.

Well, our local catchment school has none of those, but plenty of knife crime incidents (the last last week when a year 10 was discovered threatening another child with a knife in an actual lesson and police were called - not only was it all discussed extensively on Facebook but the police then went round all the local primaries this week to talk to the kids about knife crime.)

Anyway, as I said, DD happens to have an unusual talent for languages and history, and is desperate to learn Latin, Greek, Classical Civilization and Italian - and there is zilch, nada, zip of any of those on offer, not in any state school in our local authority. But I guess the plebs shouldn’t aspire to learn any of those things, no? Best that we leave it to the really wealthy to learn those cultural luxuries - kids of bankers and Boris Johnson and people like that. We definitely should be punishing any middle-income kids who might have the temerity to be interested in any academic subject that doesn’t suit their status in society. Let’s not get above ourselves! Classics only for the rich please! That’s a true left-wing position, oh yes.

We mortgaged and remortgaged in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2021 and 2023, and there were no lenders offering more than 3x household at any of those points unless you had a very very low LTV!

@asterel "No way do you get 3.5 or 4x household income unless you have a giant cash deposit"

When was the last time you went for a mortgage? Friends and family getting mortgages right up until before the pandemic ( I'll admit things might have changed) were getting 3.5% of household income and sometimes more on 15-20% deposits.

Oh and DofE from Bronze to Gold.

@ChocolateFinger222

This is another point, who are these people affording 18k a year on average for private school fees who live in areas where the available state schooling within a reasonable commuting distance is so poor on average compared to the rest of the country?

What do they mean by "not good" too? I've heard PE parents discuss the state school I worked in during the 2000s as "awful" on more than several occasions.

Just to give the lowdown on what this school is still providing till this day, 75% or more each year achieving 5 good GCSEs with English and Maths with the top 3 sets achieving similar levels to the local grammar results in that respect. Very good, non selective 6th form, that despite losing the top 5-10% of GCSE performers to local grammars ( or to privates on scholarships) still achieves around 40% of students going to RG universities every year, often Oxbridge and Med/Vet too. Also cause of its size it is able to run as many A levels as big 6th form colleges, offering further maths, EPQ, classics, and other things that smaller 6th forms can't.

For extra curriculars it has a thriving PE department which runs teams in boys and girls Football, as well Rugby, Netball, Tennis, Cricket and Athletics. It also runs Cheerleading and fitness clubs.

Arts department that puts on a school musical a year, show choir, clubs for fine artists etc etc. School Council, world challenge, guest speakers.....

Yeah, awful.

So your argument is that most state schools are good or outstanding so the mugs paying for education should pay extra tax? Why not just let them get on with wasting their own money? Why make them think twice?

@Aladdinzane No way do you get 3.5 or 4x household income unless you have a giant cash deposit (usually 60% plus of the total value). The classical measure used was 3.5 x single income and 2.5 x household income, and that’s close to what you’ll get now from a reputable lender in the current interest rate environment. (Unless interest only, or with a huge deposit, even in the days of subprime mortgage lending in practice you usually didn’t remotely get the income multiple that lenders often claimed you might.) The days of 4 x household income really are gone, I’m afraid!

@ChocolateFinger222 a sizeable proportion of parents in my area cannot access the good or excellent state schools, so over subscribed are they - what are they supposed to do? Just accept the crap alternative they’re allocated, miles from their home?

It is a stupid comment.

It’s not a stupid comment . 86% of state schools are good or outstanding so shut schools are actually quite rare.

@BIWI but you see, the way Labour’s manifesto works (as I understand it) is that it will not just put private schools out of reach for folk in your excellent state school area, but in fact all across the country, so also in areas like mine, where state provision is, frankly, not good.

I wouldn’t mind so much, were your excellent state schools accessible to me.

Do you now understand the Swiss-cheese-sized holes in your argument?

I put in 500 per month, which is actually higher than the 5k for band H in Surrey by another 1000. I was trying to make allowances for those who would say " That's not average council tax in nicer areas" if I put in an average council tax amount.

Don't on average banks offer from 3.5 to 4 times gross household income, this is what google is telling me ( its been a while since I had to get one).

So our gross income family on 70k ( the hypothetical ones earlier with one child in PE) could get, being conservative and going to 3 times, a mortgage for 310k.