Private school fees

jones the "outstanding" academy DS1 attended (non selective apart from those in the very MC town town it's based in are guaranteed a place) sends a handful of children to Oxbridge every year and loads to RG universities.

jonesthegirl Tue 01-Mar-16 11:12:20 HPFA. Its no surprise i like the grammar school system !.

I suspect the real reason you like grammar schools is because you DD was lucky enought to get into one. I would imagine you would like them a whole lot less if your daughter hadn't got into one.

HPFA. Its no surprise i like the grammar school system !.

Comprehensive school took me to 'Super Drug' with 1 Gcse grade D

Grammar School took DD1 to Cambridge.

Go figure ....

Thank you meditrina for making that clear.

It's not particularly technical. When the CC looks in to whether a charity is fulfilling its obligations, if it decides it's not, the only option is to close it.

Schools which are charities remain so because legally they have to, unless/until the law is changed.

It was all thrashed out in legal hearings, when it was determined that the provision of bursaries was one way to support charitable status, but it was neither necessary nor sufficient in itself. The provision of education is a valid charitable aim in English law (I think similar law across whole of UK), though it applies to schools/universities providing a full range (not crammers where you can just buy specific courses).

A potentially tricky bit if you want to change the law is that if education is no longer a valid charitable aim, all charities (not just schools) would have to fund any educational activities from non-charitable donations which would be a major PITA for them (and worst case, they'd have to stop providing them). Compare the reaction to the proposed change that government given funds cannot then be used by charities for government lobbying. If that (small, clear cut) issue is that difficult, imagine how much worse unpicking 'education' would be.

I'm not sure anyone has ever said that being able to pay for education is fair in fact I agree that it's unfair that a small number have so much but I'm not in the slightest bit convinced that "it takes away hope from the majority of society" that statement to my mind seem rather melodramatic. There are lots of post on MN from those who have not had a paid for education or had their education paid for about how well they or their DC's have done.

"just wanting something better and being able to afford to buy it. Same goes for many things in life doesn't it? "

I'm not sure education can be equated to "many things in life" because if the richest and those with particular talents anyway also get a better standard of education that is just unfair. It takes away hope from the majority of society

We have one at private and one at state, although DD will be joining DS at the private school in August. It's an Edinburgh day school where fees are a bit over £10k and with extras, we probably pay around £12 pa. We received a very large inheritance and the fees are ring fenced in cash.

Without the inheritance, we would have still been able to afford two sets of school fees assuming I had stayed in work (2 sets of FT middle management salaries at a financial services company). We had a fairly low mortgage - £500pm so fees and mortgage would have taken up £2,500pm which was doable on our salaries.

However, there is no way we would have been able to afford 4 sets of fees without the inheritance.

I do not know anything about the technicalities of removing charitable status but this has been suggested on numerous occasions over the last 20 or so years maybe longer. When it looked like the Charities Commission were going to remove the charitable status of schools who were not dishing out bursaries left right and centre (I think about 7-8 years ago but I could be wrong) some heads from some independent schools wrote an article in one of the broad sheets about loosing charitable status. They claimed theyd already sought legal advise on this and they certainly didn't see it as the end of the road for their school by any stretch of the imagination in fact they thought it could be a good thing, removing the pressure to fund bursaries would free up more money for other things and possibly in some cases mean that fees could be slightly reduced. Of course the Charities Commission decided that have a generous bursary pot was not going to be a condition of maintaining charitable status so they never had to find out how and if it would work.

According to the "Great British class survey" only the elite can really afford private schooling i.e. 6% of population with an average household net income of 89k (150k gross). Established middle class who form 25% of population & have an average household net income of 47K (70k gross) & savings of 26k might be able to squeeze one child in. However given that only 7% attend private schools therefore one can assume that the overwhelming majority of "established middle class" don't.

To have 2 kids in a south east private school = 40k/yr = 45% of average elite class net income & that's a huge commitment even looking at it from an elite perspective.

Out of curiosity what % of your household net income is going to private school?

We are at 40% but no mortgage and a few years worth of school fees in reserve.

"I do not know what the solution is but the first and most obvious thing to do would be to abolish the charitable status of private schools so they pay taxes like any other business. "

Under the law as it stands, there is no way to just remove charitable status. Right now, it would mean winding up the charity and disposing of the assets under the existing regulations. This would cause immense strain in the state school system as the places and funding for all the pupils currently in those schools would have to be immediately accommodated in the state system.

I'm not aware of any proposals to change the law to permit (any) charities to transfer their assets into private hands.

We will have sent three privately by the time we are done on a combined salary of around 90k. We've done it this way:
state primary until year 5 or 6
private on scholarships (two 25% off fees, one extremely talented sportsperson with 50% fees) until end of year 11
outstanding state 6th form for 12 and 13

We have an extremely low mortgage and have stayed in our first house. We have undertaken absolutely no house improvements and the first thing I will do when second child goes to state 6th form is get our windows replaced!! We havent had a holiday in four years.
We chose a school where my children's talents were very much valued and wanted (hence the large scholarships).
We drive very old cars.
But we do buy clothes, lots of sports kit, nice food and have evenings out at the cinema etc.

Still not sure whether its all been worth it but the children have come through happy so far.

penthouse I think very many people live as you do, but on a salary of around 1/4 of yours, which is still a pretty reasonable income.

jonesthegirl I don't think people dislike others because their children go to grammar schools but if we were to return to a fully selective system then 80% of us would have no choice but to send our kids to secondary moderns. There would be no escaping across the border to the next county once your child has been "selected" for the secondary modern.
We are perfectly entitled to say (politely) that we think that would be a bad thing just as you or anyone else are entitled to say that it would be a good thing.

The thing that gets me is the 'were not rich' type comments as if to justify working hard or being successful.

Anyone who earns £100k pa which is 4 times the 'inflated' (not true) Uk average wage is statistically 'very well off'.

This is an example of people being so far removed from life.

The article presented by 'Minifingers' highlights the abject failure of the comprehensive system in getting children in to '100k' professions.

I actually think the idea of the comprehensive system was to reduce 'socio mobility' to protect the 'private/public' families . It has been very successful in achieving its aims...

I have namechanged to give a more full answer here to OPs original question.

We are putting 4 through private secondary, although due to age gap maximum strain is 3 at once for 4 years. These are London day schools where fees are close to £6k per term each without extras. I expect to pay £19k per term this year, rising to £20k next year.

We are not rich, no inheritance, no grandparents paying, no city bonuses. One full time professional salary (just into 6 figures), one part time salary around £20k.

We can do it because we have always planned and worked towards this from the early days of our marriage. In our early careers we always lived well within means and saved all spare cash to pay off the mortgage. Once established in house number two we continued to save as much as possible. When we could have afforded it, instead of buying a bigger house we stayed put and bought a BTL which could be sold if we need the cash. The mortgages are both low tracker rates secured just as our first child went into secondary, and just before interest rates plummeted- this has made a massive difference to us.

We kept extra curricular expenses to a minimum- eg taught all dc's to swim ourselves, group music lessons rather than individual. Family meals out are a treat rather than a regular thing etc.

We are not mean - just sensible and careful with our money, and I keep a detailed record of finances and outgoings to keep me sane. We can cover pretty much two sets out of income with the balance from savings, and the savings shouldn't run out before we are done.

So this is how we have done it - very long term financial planning some good luck.

It's a personal decision.... which perpetuates an unfair and elitist system, and has a massive cultural impact. this article compares it to the Indian caste system in its impact on society.

It's unfair. Just because it benefits YOUR child that doesn't make it tolerable or just.

I do not know what the solution is but the first and most obvious thing to do would be to abolish the charitable status of private schools so they pay taxes like any other business.

Yes totally agree with that! It's about time someone said it!

So when the charitable status is removed the schools can stop allowing the community to use the facilities and stop handing out Bursaries to the riff-raff and just allow those who can afford it to pay to go to the school and not have to subsidise poor people that want to eat at the Michelin starred restaurant but can only afford McDonalds!

Mumtryingherbest every parent who recognises the value of education is compensating in some way for a state run education with finite (sometimes dwindling) financial resources and a limited pool of good managers and teachers. Some compensate by paying fees as well as tax (and try to make the best choice with their money), some compensate by out of school extras and /or putting in the time themselves (if they have it and are capable). Others take the risk and effort to try for bursaries. Some families strike lucky with their state options or plan ahead for good options with sacrifices in housing. The universities also try to compensate for candidates with sufficient potential but cannot cover basics with their students so have to select accordingly.

people should not be judged for sending their children private or otherwise - it's a personal decision

I totally disagree. It's a small personal decision that feeds into a wider issue of social inequality which in this country is an utter disgrace. By all means make that personal choice for your DC - you have that freedom - but don't try and paint it as offensive that other people don't agree. It isn't. I don't agree with private schools full stop. I don't think they should exist.

I do not know what the solution is but the first and most obvious thing to do would be to abolish the charitable status of private schools so they pay taxes like any other business.

Not that that will ever happen in the UK as basically everyone in charge has been to a fee paying school.

This thread makes me really angry...people should not be judged for sending their children private or otherwise - it's a personal decision. I have four children, eldest private, dd2 about to start, youngest two in state primary. Luckily 3-4 year gaps in age. Eldest daughter started in state secondary but is was a disaster due to bullying. No doubt dd2 would have been ok in state, but I will not give one sibling an educational advantage over the other, so they will all go private for secondary.
How do we afford it? Fees are 11k p.a...less extras than state school. Uniform lasts forever and can be handed down. Max 2 at secondary per year = £22k. Our income is less than £65k. I am going back to work and hope to clear £2k per month after tax. Youngest about to start school so no childcare. Older kids will hold fort after school till I get home. 10 year old car...cheap holidays...no big spends clothes wise, primark all the way! Everybody happy, low cost extra curricular activities. It is just about doable with 4.

sendsummer - If your DCs' schools are recognised as weak then quite rightly that will be taken into account at university admissions.

In an ideal world. However, it's not quite that simple. Plarticularly if the parents and children at that school are compensating for what the school lacks.

primal we were told the bursary application was entirely independent of our son's scholarship application (and general application to the school).

Thank you. The school we are looking at makes it clear that financial assistance is linked to the entrance exam.

The interplay between bursaries and scholarships varies between schools.

Some do require the candidates for a means-tested award to be of scholarship level (whether academic or subject specific), but some (IME the majority) do not. You need to find out from the specific school which camp they fall in to and, if not tidily one or the other, then establish what it is they do look for.

My children's school has many weaknesses and I don't know how it will work out. It's tough for them and they will have to work extra hard over their school life to compensate for these weaknesses
minifingerz from my experience DCs at academic private schools or grammar schools work rather hard to make the most of what they have been given particularly by the time they get to sixth form where self motivated independent study is part of the norm.
It would be tough indeed for your DCs if they were working even harder as the lack of time for any other activity would mean a rather narrow joyless life for them. Hopefully this is not what you are expecting from them. If your DCs' schools are recognised as weak then quite rightly that will be taken into account at university admissions.