To ask how you afford private school fees

[Elephantslovetofly]

We have a young DD, and although it's a while away yet we are thinking about school. The area we live in does not have a good local school, and we are considering an independent school for her

Disclaimer - I went to a private school and for what it's worth had a great education. I enjoyed being there and did well in exams. I believe my parents decided to send me there also because of a lack of a good local state school. I might have done fine at a state school, but will never know I guess

We are probably 45 min drive from the school I went to - further than is ideal. DH doesn't mind driving her there if we decide to send her there though (if she is fortunate enough to get a place)

The issue is whether we can afford it. The fees are about £9k per year for junior and £12k for senior. Assuming we therefore need to find £1k per month for fees

My cheeky question is this - if you have a child at private school, what does your household earn and how difficult is it to find the money each month to pay the fees? Our income is about £60k, and at the moment I don't think we can do it (along with our other current expenses). Wages might go up a bit before we would need to start paying, but if this is always going to be a pipe dream i'd rather get over it now

I know we could move closer to a good state school, but am exploring my options at this stage. Don't really want to move, as we have a good house here and are settled

Thanks for reading

Lurked - if your snidy comment was directed at me, I can tell you I also believe that there is inequality in admissions in the state sector.

But you know - it's NOTHING like the levels of inequality that are created by private schools. My dc's comp is one of the most oversubscribed and successful schools in the UK, and it takes in large numbers of low achieving children from the poorest households, as well as many with special needs.

Tell me - is there ONE poor, low achieving child at your dc's private school?

Private schools are completely and totally closed to the children who would benefit most from their calm learning environments, individual attention and stable work forces: low and middle achievers from disadvantaged and unsupportive backgrounds.

Even the most successful comprehensive state schools have a place for these children: more so when they use lottery and fair banding admissions systems to reduce the problems associated with selection by postcode.

"I don't need to address the arguments of somebody so ill educated that they can only descend into could language as an insult"

How long have you been on Mumsnet Hyacinth ? This is a very sweary place.

Fair enough maybee. Do you also think parents with access to good state schools should turn them down in favour of bad ones to ensure equal cohorts in all? Or do you think it's perfectly natural that most parents want their child to have the best available education, rather than being a socialist experiment? It's not the 7% at independents that have caused such a vast discrepancy in state provision, it's the middle class state parents.

You really don't maintain the upper hand do you minifingerz.

Shall I explain again that the op asked about economic factors rather than philosophical ones. Do be a dear and have a think about what the op asked and try to answer the question rather than spinning the thread to your own argument.

**Lurkedforever the vast, vast majority of state schools are far more mixed, socially and educationally, than even the most enlightened private schools can ever hope to be. That is one of the reasons I chose a state school for my DS. I value that diversity.

And you k ow what mini. To answe the question succinctly. Because we are rich and we don't accept that our children's education in London should be compromised by those who simply cannot and will not behave in the classroom and for whom excuses are continually made by educationalists. DH went to the local comp when those who behaved anti-socially were permanently excluded. When that can happen again and when the minority stop raining on the parade of the majority, state education will become all the more viable again. Until those within it stop making excuses it isn't viable if there are choices. Based on two years in a sought after comp - it was sickening. The head thought it was completely acceptable to dilute the chances of 25% of pupils off local estates who didn't have parental support but over whom a significant 6% or 7% minority had a greater hold than over the midle class dc because the latter were removed from their influence after school. That 25% came off worst and the people in charge (middle class teachers) were facilitating it.

Honestly I don't really buy the league table stuff of what a "good" school is. I went to a shit, 30% GCSE pass rate inner city comp. I came out with ten excellent GCSEs and four A grade A levels. And I have a RG degree. On paper my school looked awful. But actually it was a brilliant choice for me. Maybe I would have got a couple of extra A*s or whatever had I gone to a private school. Maybe. But I went to a university where the vast majority of students were privately educated, and unfortunately their attitude stinks. There were some exceptions. But I don't want my DC growing up like that. Academics aren't everything.

In any case, it may only be 7% privately educated in this country. But that 7% make up a disproportionately high number of CEOs, politicians and other powerful positions in this country. Would DC be PM had he not gone to Eton? I doubt it.

I'm sure if you live a mc lifestyle, and all the privilege attached to that, your state options are mixed socially and educationally, and are highly sought after. Just don't pretend that all state schools are similar, access to state education is a huge social injustice.

mini none, but neither are there any parents pretending poorer dc have an equal chance of such an education. Unlike many parents who are lucky in their childs state school, but won't acknowledge the majority of less privileged dc don't have access to such schools.

We just moved where we could afford to. Schools didn't even vaguely factor into our decision

It's a hard decision OP and based on experiences of friends in London a far harder dilemma than that of my experience (and local friends) in the North.

I think one issue is you need to be sure you can afford it on an ongoing basis. Pulling children out of school when they are doing well and have made friends because you can't manage the fees is probably one of the most soul destroying things I've witnessed a friend have to do.

For my part, DH was privately educated and I was state educated. I academically have done significantly better, but from a career point of view we are now pretty much equal in seniority and earnings.

We did consider private education and there are some fantastic private schools near to us, but in the end we chose a state education and moved to a village in the same region to access the best catchment areas.

In th end the "killer" wasn't the money (though I appreciate we are fortunate in this regard) it was that children were expected to go to school on a Saturday morning (albeit to play sports).

We just didn't want our "family" time at the weekend compromised in this way.

Friends who went the private route seem generally happy with their choice (as are we - DS is doing really well) but it's clear that even as high earners it's been and remains a hard slog for them.

School fees top trump every other life expense and from my POV they have missed out on a lot of other things.

In summary I would say that if your child is bright and willing to learn then they will thrive in a good state school. The money you "save" on private education can be spent on other life enchanting and educational experiences (I include holidays in this).

So beau, how do you propose those 'antisocial' children for whom 'excuses' are made should be treated? What system would be best for them in your opinion in terms of support / discipline etc? I am interested to hear.

(We are talking about CHILDREN here, but still: interested in hearing).

I don't see why people have to be unpleasant on either side of the divide. We are all parents trying to do the best for our children which is wonderful morally right course. That probably means reading to them and feeding them well, it might mean tutoring whilst they are in a state school or helping them with music practice or driving them to swimming and picking a state or private school which is good for them. I don't see why pay school fees is morally worse than bnot feeding them junk food or telling them stories every night or cuddling them. They are all part of putting your children first and are love really and care. That might mean choosing the best state school or moving near a grammar school or going back to work full time to pay school fees or if you hvae a wonderful comp choosing that or if you believe the only way to improve atrocious comps or a dreadful local private school is to send your child there then you do that. We all take our own decisions.

For this doctor I think she'd be best placed to go the private school route for all the reasons given above and to protect her financial position best I would also see if she could get her husband back into full time work eventually too.

Life is very unfair. Some people marry men who beat them up or are depressed or beat the children. Others cannot properly express love to children. Others are drug users. others don't value education or pass on pain and suffering of genetic problems to a child and all the rest. The fact your local state school might be better in one place than another is "unfair too". However the bottom line is your moral duty as a parent is to do best for your child and that is what most of us try to do. It is not morally wrong to pick a good school for your child rather than hoping the useless local school might in the next 5 years do better.

They need small, specialist schools with highly specialist staff. I would be very happy to pay mire tax for it to be achieved. The present system benefits nobody.

My dc have attended 9 state schools between them and one private (currently)

There's such a diverse range of social mixes, far more than any of the state schools that also spanned 2 very different counties. You don't always get this in state schools.
The system is unfair particularly in admittance, and some areas are fighting a losing battle.

I know there are some lovely leafy comps where the dc do as well as the private schools, but this isn't the case for too many. Some children, one of mine in fact don't get the chance of reaching potential because of their school year, or house no, which primary they went to, etc etc etc.

It's ok having principles but they can come back and bite you on your ass.
I used to hold so many anti private school principals and my vitriol? towards parents who used boarding schools seems laughable now.

I have a child who begged, pleaded and finally told me she would never forgive me if I didn't let her go. Principals are fine, but better to look at both sides.

Eats Shit I agree with you. At least I have time to make the decision I guess and see where we're at in a couple of years

user I agree we all do want to do the best we can for our children, however that may be

I find some of the vitriol on both side of this more than a little baffling. My DD will go to the school that I think is best for her. Some posters who could afford to pay feels feel that private school would not be right for their child and so send them to the local state school. Some parents move so they can access the state school of their choice. All of these views are fine by me. We all have that right and I really can't get worked up about other parents doing what they view to be in the interests of their child(ren).

Personally, whilst acknowledging that there are some excellent state schools which produce outstanding results, and that there are also benefits to children being exposed to a culturally diverse peers (although many state schools are not very diverse at all), I thought my DD's school was preferable on a number of levels. I don't think that the local state provision is good enough and so I chose to use a private school which has the standards and ethos that I agree with. Contrary to some views regarding what "interested and middle class parents" could do to improve schools, I do not believe that I could alter the situation in our local schools singlehandedly.

I went to a pretty average state and came out with good grades but it wasn't a great experience for me. My father was very much anti-private school and although my mum had attended private school she didn't feel as strongly about it as my father, so we went to the local state school. It was technically "socially diverse" although when I was in the second year the catchment area changed to include 2 very deprived areas which changed the mix somewhat. I felt I came out with good grades in spite of, not because of, the school. We had a few great teachers who really helped, and supportive parents, which is probably why it worked out well for me. The lack of effective discipline, the way the "swots" were treated for actually daring to want to get on with the work and the fact that teachers spent a lot of time trying to sort out bad behaviour were real negatives. Other than a few sports teams, the orchestra and later D of E there were few other opportunities. I would prefer my daughter have better opportunities than I did and as the local school cannot provide that, I will send her to the best school I can and if I have to pay for it, then so be it.

I love it when people spew their venon on p private school threads, throwing around how some parents "trample all over poorer kids" whilst they do exactly the same themselves. I know, I know, you don't like the system but you play it like a fiddle which makes you as bad as those you skate. That naice house you paid a premium for next door to the outstanding village state school or the grammar school exams that you prepped your child for every night for a year.....ring any bells? (No axe to grind; my DC don't go private and unless I win the lottery, never will.)

What I find amazing is how anyone questioning the equity of the education is "spewing venom".

spewing venom is a great term.

By going private surely parents are saving the hallowed taxpayer money. Its more immoral to sponge off the state if you can afford private education surely....? I really don't understand the 'moral' objections to private.

Just to comment on the commute issue, my DS and I have travelled together for 35-45 mins each morning and evening since he was 5 months old. First so he could be in my workplace nursery and then to go to school nearby. He learned to speak on those journeys, learned to look at the world, and since he has been at school he does spellings, reads his reading books to me and tells me about his day all in the car. It is not wasted time. DS even has his evening meal in the car (I take it to work with me). He has a hot lunch so sandwiches are not a problem. It is a private school as I couldn't get wraparound childcare where we live, well not and keep my job. We remortgaged the house and took financial advice, and I run a complex spreadsheet which assumes 6% year on year fee increase. We are having our first foreign holiday since he was born later this year: a whole two days in France. No it's not easy, but if you are sufficiently financially organised and do not go part-time, it is possible.

we couldn't afford private school, but have 'found' money for nursery ft which is no cheap ticket… the main difference is that salary sacrifice and knowing its for a v short time makes it worth while.
for us a good state school gives a more rounded education here than any of the local private schools even if kids will likely talk 'funny' accordingly to some family members

Not getting into the private school debate but the 45 minute trip there would be a huge obstacle for me. Fine if it is next to where you or your dh work. long trip but still doable although absolutely not ideal for your dd either and problematic when it comes to meeting up with school friends at the weekends.

but if you drive 45 minutes there to drop off, then back home, then back again and home, you will effectively be spending almost 3 hours in the car every day. Whoever is doing the driving will be affected by this. Moonbells you are doing a 35-45 minute commute twice a day. if you don't live/work near the school that would be a 90 minute commute twice a day.

I have far less of a commute to do drop offs for my children's schools (20 minutes each way usually/40 minutes if there is heavy traffic) and I find it completely draining. I have only done this for 2 years with 2 more to go. If I had to do it for the entire school life, I'd be insane - and even heavier than i am now from sitting in a car.

Agreed. But most people up thread were commenting on the commute being tough on the DC, who only do it twice a day. I know how tough it is doing it there and back twice because I've occasionally had a week off and had to do just that. (And then gone back to work for a rest!)

Of course there is venom on these threads.

Everyone wants to do their best for their child and for many people it isn't a choice about moving, restricting expenditure etc etc it's the local school of whatever calibre or nothing.

It's surely understandable to posters that some people will find this a difficult subject?

It doesn't mean that posters who were fortunate enough to have choices shouldn't express that, nor should those that did not, be able to express their dissatisfaction of the educational inequality in the UK.

Slagging off all state school or the reverse is a massive over generalisation. There are good and bad in both camps.

The real issue here is not the bun fights between posters on this thread but the fact that some children in the UK do not have access to an acceptable level of education and that's really bloody sad.

It won't go down well, but I do think that paying a tax premium (earnings weighted) if you are lucky enough (as I am) to send your child to a top rated state school would help support less performant schools, by paying bonuses for top teachers etc and improving facilities - so that over time we should see an improvement across the whole of the state sector.

Dons hard hat and runs away