to think that, no, it is not possible to pay private school fees simply by "going without"?

[nameymcnamechange]

Of all the many thousands of things that annoy me about Mumsnet, it is this myth that more people could send their children to private school if they prioritised school fees over "extravagant lifestyles" and made sacrifices including but not limited to

• running one car or no car
• not going on holiday, or camping
• economising with food
• buying second hand clothes and not being interested in designer handbags

No, those small economies are not going to make the difference between a state or private education for the vast vast vast majority of families.

So can we please stop posting this kind of nonsense?

As I have said earlier I was state educated. My percptions of prepschool are based on Dhs recolections and a couple of sweet kids I tutored for thier exams , while I did my A levels in the 1990s are probrably outdated. However my perception was that these poor kids were being made miserable by academia far too young ( 11ish).

I agree with the OP - my circumstances mean I just don't have enough money for private education and there are no cuts to be made. Maybe it is possible if you are the type of person tho buy designer handbags as clearly you have too much money to start with!

Day fees round my way start at £5500 a term rising sharply for the 6th form. That's a lot of designer handbags.

I reckon you need around £40K gross income JUST for the schools for two kids (ie on top of your other income). (20K a year after tax at higher rate and NI)

The other thing is it is not just finding the fees - surely if you send your kid to these places you can't make them the only one that does not go on the trips etc. Plus the uniform can't be bought in M&S. And if you are really struggling and have no car etc just to send your kids and they are surrounded by rich friends won't they feel a bit out of it.

Riven, that is odd that the school was known as 'Anorexia High'. We have a private girls' school near us which is known as 'Anorexia High', and a family member took 2 full years out of education to be treated for anorexia. You are in Bristol. Is it a nickname for more than one girls' boarding school? If your AH is in Bristol, then is it common?

I've just read the whole thread - can someone explain the summer/winter cushions thing?

Is it really just that some people have different cushions for different seasons and going without this is one of the sacrifices you might have to make to afford school fees?

We send our dc to local independent schools. We are also fortunate enough that we don't have to scrimp and save to do so and I am a SAHM which I love.

The schools my dc attend are 'better' than the local state schools in that they get much more attention and care. The schools are also different in that my dd's school is very academic whilst my ds' school is not. This suits my children's needs. They are both extremely happy at their schools and we are delighted with how they are blossoming.

I do not subscribe to the idea that independent schools are always better than state. Far from it, however in our case the schools we have chosen for our dc are better for them.

The children who attend these schools are not snobs or arrogant at all. They are just normal children. Their parents are also normal people. Some of the parents are extremely well-off but they tend to be the ones in the battered old cars. Basically because they couldn't care less about flashing their wealth around.

Quite a few of our friends live in extremely expensive houses (£1 million plus) so that they are able to send their children to the sought after state school. How is that not elitist? If you can afford the house prices, you can get an excellent free education, but if you can't afford the house prices, you're stuck with the average schools.

Yet these 'friends' consistently tell me that they are amazed that we pay for our dc's education and think that we are being snobby. They don't seem to see the irony that they have 'bought' their children's education even though it is supposedly a free one.

I do agree that in most cases even with economising a private education is not feasible. It is patronising in the extreme to say that 'going without' will enable them to do so. Of course, many people do not like the idea of private education and that is of course their right.

Personally I don't understand why people get so upset about the decisions other people make.

I suspect in real life the vast majority of people can't afford it, don't consider it and don't worry about it at all.

Tis only here on MN that so many get exorcised about it and feel the need to make assumptions about others' lives.

I often smile at the parade of posters so desperate to tell me I'm wasting my money. That in fact independent schools are rubbish. Why on earth do you care what I spend my money on? Trully, why?

Would you need to check my wardrobe or my wine cellar to declare other areas where I am wasteful?

Litchick, I think many peple feel a sense of unfairness/guilt at the fact that our children's standard of education and therefore future should be dictatted by how much/little we earn. After all, it's not my DD's fault I'm a pauper!

Having said that great success can be bourne out of a state education and likewise I have met some utter dunces from a privately educated background, so ho hum.

I accept that.
And will engage in discussions about unfairness in society etc

But the endless wagging fingers telling me I'm wasting my money are a puzzle.
I find those organic veg boxes a waste of money.
Ditto celebrity mags.
Ditto novels inhard back.

But I really don't mind if you have four boxes a day delivered, while reading a copy of Hello and a hard back version of Twilight.

As for all the tales of drug addled, anorexic, emotionally stunted children from private schools, well, they are dreadfully boring.
The children at my DCs schools seem rather normal to me...but what do I know comapared to all the 'experts' on here.

Of course that's entirely your choice Litchick but are we not allowed to discuss the assumption that private schools are better simply by dint of being private without you taking it terribly personally? I'm glad your school is good and your children are happy. It's the blanket assumption that state=bad and private=good that I'm interested in, not your own particular circumstances.

But why do you care what others think?

Seriously. If a few people believe that private schools are the only way to go...why do you care?

I care for two reasons - one is that for some people, it is a real financial stretch to send their children to private school and I dislike the myth that it's what decent parents do if they possibly can. It's scaremongering and that's wrong.

And secondly because I think that the increasing numbers of children who are sent to private school means that we are in real danger of deepening the chasm in our society which is already there

Middle class flight from state education benefits none of us.

"I dislike the myth that it's what decent parents do if they possibly can."

I agree with you there. Similar to mothers going out to work. That we could all somehow do better by our kids if we just made do without the little luxuries . Laughable inaccurate for most of us.

"Middle class flight from state education benefits none of us."

But it's the prisoner's dilemma, isn't it? Or the tragedy of the commons? Or something like that.

My city abolished the 11+ in 1974. The middle classes breathed a sigh of relief and, especially for people who didn't already have children in foundation grammars, send them to the shiny new comps. In strength there was power. But over the years, the siren call of the foundation grammars caused a few to weaken, and as the middle classes leached away we ended up in the situation where anyone who didn't get their children into the grammars was damned with the word "brave".

It's like eating in a restaurant where you've decided to split the bill evenly. You may as well have the lobster, because it'll only cost you a small amount more provided everyone else has something cheap. But they'd be mad not to have the lobster, because why should they pay extra for their hamburger to subsidise your lobster. So unless everyone agrees to eat hamburger, the moment one person defects and has something expensive everyone will follow them over subsequent meals.

"Well that's alright for you Jellie, with your uppper class titled background -- and you choose to judge a working class parent who struggles to scrape their child out of the local sink school?

You sound like Marie Antoinette dressing up as a milkmaid."

I beg to differ; more like milkmaid aspiring to be Marie Antoinette
The virtual world of internet has brought around a lot of 'titeled' folk..... Pity some just make such obvious and embarrassingly cringeworthy read.
However, digressing.
To Coalition...., please do not make assumptions about my reasons for sending my children to private shool.

OrmRenewed - I agree, too. That's so true! Just like the people at the start of this thread who said that this was the "OP's opinion"(ROFL), often on sahm/wohm threads you'll get loads coming on saying "well, I wanted to do what is best for my dc, so we live without holidays/meals out/treats...etc", as if this is an option for everyone. It's not. It's simply not.

But, I guess some people will never understand what it's like to not have enough money - really not have enough money - to the point that there is nothing you can "cut back" on because you are already earning just enough to meet basic needs (or less).

I agree too Orm (re. both parents working).

And my op doesn't just apply to people on benefits, on low salaries, on slightly lower than average slaries, or average salaries.

It also applies to people on above average, slightly above average and well above average salaries too, in most cases!

Rollmops - well if you are only thinking of the things you mention your getting really shitty value for money.