How do you decide between private school or state school?

[Hecegoza]

I'm so torn... There's a lovely prep school, relatively close (15 min drive) and it only has 123 students - from age 1-11. I'd want mine to start at Pre-Reception.

It's very family-like and has great pastoral care (which I think is more important than results, for sure).

It's reasonable price - it's £21 a morning session for Pre-Reception and then £2,900 each term up to Year 6. That includes lunch/swimming, etc.

Then there's an 'Outstanding' state school which is walking distance, it's a lovely newly built building. Then friends he met at school would most likely be in his village too... So that's a bonus, and most likely to go to the same secondary.

I'm struggling to decide if your kids go private, why is that? If state, why did you pick that? I feel they both have good benefits!

^Got children not boy children! Sorry typo,

i say if you can afford private, go private.

We started off at the local community school. Dd loved nursery, stalled in reception and by the Easter was a weepy school refusing wreck who was being bullied mercilessly. Where we live there is NO chance of getting a place out of catchment so it was either move, home ed or private. Moving into a stellar catchment was more expensive on balance than educating our only child privately to 18 so it was the most financially prudent way around the problem.
We live in the 'shit end' of town, don't earn a great deal, drive crappy old cars etc. We're not the only ones at dd's school either.
Dd is a changed child, loves school and is gradually regaining her confidence in the classroom. The right school for the right child.....

Ah the old chestnut that there are loads of people on big bursaries and that it can be done with "sacrifices". It must take a LOT of holidays, shoes and cars foregone to pay £30k school fees a year for two DC in addition to living costs!

Get real. It's not financially possible for the majority.

(My DC attend private school btw.)

Agreed.

I do know for a fact that Westminster got a few applications for bursaries after 2008 because family incomes had gone down to 250 know.

civilservant

If we get much more fee assistance the school will be paying us.
There are children who receive free travel, uniform, assisted places on trips.
I'm not saying there are many but they do exist, even at 30k and above fee paying schools.

Yes, but those DC are the exception. And didn't get their bursaries through parents foregoing the odd holiday and shopping at Lidl instead of waitrose.

£30k - £40k a year could pay for 2 DC at some day schools. The even posher ones cost more.

CivilServant

My eldest has fees paid by ex.

Youngest 2, go to a school charging between £3.5k & £4.5K a term. So full price would be £24k a year.

On an average 50% bursary (for sake of argument) that's reduced to £12k a year. Do-able for some families on a lower than average income. Not saying what level we get. But how many people just fritter away £5 a day on Starbucks etc?

We are one of the exceptions. DH earns under £30k a year and I don't earn enough to pay tax.

And we do manage by forgoing holidays and being very very careful about money. No frittering and budgeting for every single penny.

It's an existence that wouldn't suit lots of people admittedly and my parents help out with buying uniform and often treat us to something because they know we struggle. But it was either that or the children in two separate schools miles apart in special measures. I walked around the private school in tears, knowing that we just wouldn't be able to afford it for the younger children. They told us to apply for a bursary and like many schools do, used an external company to come and assess what we could afford & set the fees at that level.

Re shoes. 2 of mine grew out of their school shoes at the same time. 2 pairs of regulation shoes £108.

The Lelli Kelly horrors that a lot of the girls have at parties and in home clothes £48 a time! It's not just going without a holiday or switching to Lidl, (which for some are sacrifices) but a whole raft of things which add up.

It might make people feel better by insisting that you must be pretty rich to send your children to private school, but it's not necessarily the case. Schools are able to offer bursaries and prefer to do so to families who really wouldn't be able to otherwise afford it. There are other families in similar situations to ours, who may not be on bursaries but are also making significant sacrifices and/or getting help from grandparents.

So you and ex were/are on a low combined income, and running two homes. There are a very small proportion of reduced cost places available, and you fit the school's criteria: lucky you. It's just not reality to argue that lots of people could do it: for example many earn too much to qualify for a bursary (but not enough to afford fees).

It's just bollocks that people could pay if they drank less coffee!

In my (limited to be fair) experience, burseries don't go to children of proper working class or poor backgrounds. They go to the temporarily impoverished middle and upper classes because poor families without that background would never ever think to apply. The exception is where they are outstanding at a particular sport etc that the school needs and even then they would prefer that they weren't proper poor as they need them to fit in etc.

Dozer

What?! No. My ex is on a high income & sorts out eldest DD. My DH and father of my younger children is on a low one. Not sure what you are on about re running 2 homes?

And I am not saying that most people could pay if they drank less coffee, but dispelling this myth about only very rich, super privileged or pretty comfortably off can do it.

But I do think some (not most) people who may think that they couldn't afford it, probably could if they really sat down and worked out exactly what they are spending elsewhere and they felt it was important enough to them.

It's not about drinking less coffee or not going to Waitrose but being prepared to be extremely frugal by today's standards. I'm not judging those who decide that it would all be too much of a struggle and not worthwhile. All of us go through life trying to do what we think is best for us in our circumstances.

That's just not reality though fizzy. The reality is that a very few families aside, those using private schools ARE very wealthy.

OK so got it wrong about your ex, but you've said your household has a low income: for that and other reasons you meet the criteria then you are among a very small minority.

For example, households earning £50k+ may well be ineligible for bursaries, but that income just isn't enough to pay for housing, no frills essentials, bills and fees.

I know of a few schools which offer 100% bursaries to students whose families have a combined income of £25k or less. After that it seems to be on a sliding scale. Plus if you are sat in a big mortgage free house, you wouldn't qualify either.

You often find that schools have specific legacies from certain benefactors with strict conditions. It tends to be more the older and religious schools that offer these though.

I think the phrase we're looking for is 'the genteel poor'.

It's all to do with whether or not the head and bursar like the cut of your gib and think you can offer the school some added value.

So I take the point about how most blue-collar families wouldn't even apply. Sadly.

Yes, but there won't be very many places like that at all, else how could all but the very wealthiest (and most selective - ruling out most DC) schools cover the cost?

suspect that the sliding scale would stop at a level of income/assets too low for families earning just or even some way above the thre threshold to afford the fees.

I understand that qualifying for a bursary doesn't make paying easy. But to argue that more others than do so could have the same education if they were "more frugal" isn't realistic, and is not appreciating that you had more choices than most.

Some of you on here are showing very ugly attitudes. Your children will grow up to work and live alongside people from all walks of life. You're doing them a disservice by making sweeping generalisations about certain groups of people.

Let's not pretend that some of the pious anti-private school MNers haven't benefitted from the privilege of living in a wealthy area and thus, gained a place at a better school. That's not even mentioning grammar schools and faith schools. What about those parents who are so low income that they're miles away from the coveted 'naice' primary? How many people do you think pay tens of thousands extra to secure a place at the good schools? There is an excellent state secondary in my area. It has a very good reputation. They've just announced they're opening a primary school. Houses prices have sky rocketed. It's astounding.

No axe to grind as no private education here.

When it comes to bursaries. All children are equal but some are more equal than others. If you get what I mean?

Assuming no bursaries (because they're not that common), you certainly do have to be considerably wealthy to have a spare £12k per year. That's a conservative estimate for 2 primary school aged children. The national average income is around £27k and take home pay is approximately £1800. Even if two parents are earning that, I'm struggling to see where and how most people can find £1k every single month.

But I do think some (not most) people who may think that they couldn't afford it, probably could if they really sat down and worked out exactly what they are spending elsewhere and they felt it was important enough to them.

Nope, school fees in our local shitty private for two children is more than i earn after tax and actually fees for 1 never mind two would be more than DH earns after tax. So school fees would be nearly 2/3rds of our income. And we don't consider ourselves poor. We own outright a 4 bed house in a naice estate, run 2 cars and enjoy holidays and trips.

Blue collar and below families don't even know these things exist to apply in the first place - I don't see the private schools coming to visit primaries in deprived areas, no, they advertise in broadsheet newspapers etc. and "the genteel poor" (exactly the phrase I was looking for) know exactly what is available.

I just looked at a local primary which charges £3845 per term from the ages of 7 to 11. Another one charges £2950 per term. Another one is a staggering £6125.

Having said all that my children go a state school that sits in the top 5 in the country (not England) for academic results. People move to the catchment in order to get places there and therefore save in private fees. It pushes the house prices up but we don't live local, I transport there and back every day and fit this around work. I'd rather they were where they are rather than private in terms of academics but I think private offers something different.

Lurked.

You're probably right.

Diamonds
If one salary can cover rent/bills etc then a second income could cover the fees.

Lots of parents seem to choose to work precisely so they can cover the fees. Of course many people just don't have that choice, house prices & rents need two incomes these days.

When my eldest was little and I was single, I was in a well-paid job which needed full time nursery. Some school fees work out the same cost as childcare so some parents continue to just bite the bullet especially as private schools often offer better before & after-school care.