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

I completely agree Eatsshit. But my DD did go to a tip performing state school for a while - and it was a disaster due to the behaviour and it wasn't worth an extra levy under that particular head about whom the governors did nothing until it was too late

eatshit I would sympathise with parents bearing a grudge towards private if it were those parents who have no choice but to see their child failed by a rubbish school. But both in rl and on here it's the other group, those who are benefiting from the inequality of state provision, who have a grudge towards private. With the mindset it's ok for their dc to have a better education than many many others, but unfair for a tiny minority of dc to get a better education than theirs. My dd could have so easily been one of the many at a dire state school, and my opinion now is the same as then, the biggest injustice is the quality of state provision, not the existence of private.

When I hear expressions such as 'dire state schools' or 'rubbish state schools' or that a school was a 'disaster' as beau mentions I really wonder what on earth people mean. I work with children every day (in children's mental health) in a very very deprived area and thus have daily access to these alleged 'dire / rubbish' schools and to these 'disaster' children. My view is that many of these schools that people in private schools imagine are 'dire' actually have many sides to them and I also think that the 'problematic' children you are trying so hard to avoid are very different to what I think you imagine. In a lot of these inner London 'dire schools' many kids do really really well and they're much more normal than you would think. Again and again, in family after family, I see that what makes the difference is parental input. And I don't mean 'academic' input; I mean overall relations.

However much money you throw at it, nothing can guarantee anything; and by the way, eating disorders and all sorts of other issues run riot in private schools so again: no protection. I think parents want to believe they can 'achieve the best for the child' but they are wrong if they think that the private school is what will make the difference. It's them that will mainly make the difference. Choosing a school that will make life easier (in my book: local school) and mean having more time with your child might be part of that. IMO if someone's earnings are such that full time work is necessary for both parents throughout the DCs' education, why not save some of that by choosing a state school and invest the money in working slightly more part time and being more time with your DC?

By the way. I don't agree that 'all of us want to give our children the absolute best'. A lot of us happen to also see ourselves as part of society and so how society does is important to us. I for one don't want 'the best' for my DS. I want him to be resilient, to learn to work hard, to be able to deal with people from all walks of life and befriend them, to find ways to deal with children who behave in various ways, to be curious and a good learner, to spend lots of time with me, to be surrounded by people from all over the world etc. All this is more than achievable in our local bog standard school which is good enough for most kids and good enough for my DS.

Btw beau specialist schools do exist for very specific kids but overall kids with difficulties do much much better in mainstream schools. We should be aiming for more provision for them including CAMHS support when needed (which this abhorrent government is slashing) and absolutely not supporting segregation and kicking out 'problematic' students. In fact, I believe that every school, state or private, should have a legal obligation to keep all DC that enter it. It shouldn't be allowed by law to get rid of children and then you would see a great improvement in all schools I think as provisions would have to be made, rather than handing over the problem to someone else.

Anyway, dream on, you could say...

Do consider whether you can afford the private school lifestyle on top of fees. As much as it's good to not be materialistic, kids can be cruel if you seemingly can't keep up with the big house and branded clothes. And if it will be a financial challenge, think how you'd cope as a couple. Would it lead to arguments?

eatsshits...

"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?"

Of course, it's just a shame that people can't accept that some people have the financial means to have options including that of how to educate my children, where to live, where to holiday, what car to drive etc. While people have different incomes, they will have choices; the alternative is communism.

I think you're correct that there's more passion involved when it's about children. It's why they get so riled about schools but not when someone drives a nicer car than they do. Doesn't this suggest that other posters are correct when they suggest that if they had the option, they would send their children to a public school. If they really wouldn't, I don't see what their problem is.

We send our children to a public school as I believe it's better in many (if not all) ways than the state school alternative. I guess this isn't "fair" but nor is life. Using my previous analogy, I feel no guilt that we have a more expensive car than some other people so why would I feel any differently about education.

The reasons we chose a public school are:

• Personal experience. DH and I both went to public schools and benefited from them

• Extra curricular. Sports coaches are of a higher level than could be afforded by state schools. There's a wider range from languages, music, dance, performing arts, CCF... this year, there was a diving course run in the senior school swimming pool.

• Teachers. The school pays approximately 15% than they would be offered at a state school. This naturally tends to attract better teachers. There were 70+ applicants for head of KS2 last year.

• Specialist teachers. There are swim coaches, sports coaches, IT teachers, language teachers, "booster" teachers for G&T and those who need extra for core subjects. These teachers are full time, have their own classrooms etc.

• Resources. 1 Macbook between 3 children in prep school. 1 iPad between 2. Every child learns an instrument. In year 2 it's the violin. Each child has a violin for the year to practice at home and use in class. Year 6 have trumpets. Reception have the screechy fucking recorder. There is a full size pool for secondary and a smaller one for prep (both indoor). Football pitches, tennis courts (indoor and outdoor), rugby, hockey, track and field. Also the multipurpose indoor courts.

• Class sizes. My 5 year old is in a class of 8 with one TA and one teacher. It's up to a maximum of 15 after EYFS.

• High achieving and involved parents. Before anyone starts wringing their hands and typing shitty replies, I'm talking about averages of course.

• The attitude of pupils. The atmosphere around the school is wonderful. Children come to learn and are happy to do so. Disruptive pupils are removed from the school. It's a selective school but with a certain percentage of students who aren't academically bright given a place and extra / different classes on occasion. But the idea of a child who throws things at teachers, swears, needs to be restrained and any of the other things you read about staying at the school is simply unthinkable.

• Good, old fashioned values. Sports days are competitive and there's a prize-giving ceremony. The school has houses and the intra-mural competitions are excellent. Respect for teachers. The prefect, head girl or head boy system, class representatives, student council. Parents supporting the school instead of posting on MN about safeguarding issues and Health and Safety.

• Controversially, the doors it opens. My company (through me) does work experience for two pupils from the school every year. My (I work for) company is one that wouldn't have otherwise given access to them. Top universities come to the senior school to try to recruit students. That doesn't happen at many schools. This second example will no doubt inspire anger amongst some, but when I had my Cambridge interview, one of the Masters was an old girl from my school. We chatted and had something in common. Whilst it was largely my grades that got me in, I've no doubt that in a 'tie' for a place, it could have helped me.

• Another controversial point, but it's nice to socialise with people from the same 'circles' as you. An example of which is that we had a wonderful spring half-term holiday ski-ing. We went with a few other families from school. They could afford to come and our children all had a wonderful time together.

Some of my reasons may sound like my children are getting special treatment in an unfair society. Perhaps true but why shouldn' t they? Anyone who has any luxury in their lives is doing the same.

We send dd to the indie after a horrific year in reception at a 'good' state primary. Ds was already in the nursery and since being there she has thrived.
We are average earners approx 80k income and I'm a teacher in state secondary. It's difficult but I couldn't bear sending my child to school screaming and crying every day. Now she has friends, is invited to play dates and parties and doing well academically. Her Sen is acknowledged and care regularly reviewed with us. Ds will stay on there too even tho it will be a struggle for us. My other option was to stop working and home school...but then there's the mortgage!

Hoping they will get into grammar but if not we would just carry on thru senior school

Enteryourpassword. After writing your description of why you think private schools are better (or 'public' as you call them) you say:
"Some of my reasons may sound like my children are getting special treatment in an unfair society. Perhaps true but why shouldn' t they? Anyone who has any luxury in their lives is doing the same".

Shall I answer your question? I'm guessing it's rhetorical but I'll have a go anyway.
Perhaps because I wouldn't want my DS to be in an environment where he learns that his 'disruptive' (as you call him) classmate (or needing help as I would call him) is 'removed' swiftly from school rather than helped. Perhaps because I would never want to be in the position to answer my DS why his friend / classmate was removed.
Or perhaps because I don't want my DS to grow up believing that knowing an 'old girl' (as you call her) from school will help get him into Cambridge. This particular attitude which I find embarrassing and abhorrent was precisely the reason I actually moved country and chose very different things for my own child to what I was used to growing up (which was all about 'who you know': I hated that attitude and thought it was deeply, disturbingly unfair).
I also wouldn't want my DS to believe he is inherently better than others just because his family has money. I believe (and this too may be controversial but you said many things and they deserve answering) that generally children in private schools tend to believe they are 'better' in various ways than their peers in state schools; brighter / better connected / with better opportunities etc. However, does it occur to you that the idea of 'better opportunities' really involves a concept of what 'opportunities' one wants for one's child? Is it possible to imagine that there are indeed people who actively reject and disagree with the materialistic and classist lifestyle you describe and want a wider, more real, more down to earth experience for their DC? Could you imagine that? Perhaps not, as you and DH both went to private school, but I went to private schools too, throughout my school career, and would not consider them for my son for the reasons described above.

Anyone who has any luxury in their lives is doing the same.

Utter bollocks. There's a huge difference between, say, being able to afford a fancy car and your children getting a vastly superior education along with all the benefits that presents over some equally able children who happen to be poorer.

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.

^^ This. Anyone who moves for a school, coaches their child, sends them to a selective grammar is giving unfair advantage. But my children won't be going to our local comp, I've taught in schools like that.

stilllovingmysleep I call them public schools as it's the correct use of public and private. As are the terms old boy / girl etc. A little PA to keep saying "as you call them" when they're common.

My question was a little rhetoric but still interesting to see it answered.

I think the hyperbole ("abhorrent", "deeply disturbing") is ridiculous although good for you having the courage of your convictions and moving for the education for your child. Many people so against public schools I really do believe would send their chidren to one if the opportunity arose due to a change in financial circumstances.

"I believe...that generally children in private schools tend to believe they are 'better' in various ways than their peers in state schools; brighter / better connected / with better opportunities etc."

You said "better" not me but yes, in the ways you gave they are: better connected? Yes. Better opportunities? Yes. (brighter depends on the schools academic selectiveness). As for being better people, absolutely not. My children won't think that (they're too young to consider it at the moment) I don't think so and nor does anyone I know.

Life is about who you know on occasion as I'm sure you aren't naive enough to imagine it isn't. Would you be extra friendly to someone because they're your boss and would have a say in your career progression? Of course you would*. I got to Cambridge on my own merit. Obviously a good education helped. I don't think many people can get into a top uni or job simply by knowing the right person but of course it can help.

I'm not classist insomuch as believing it's a good thing or looking up or down on others. I can see they exist though in the same way I can see different cultures and races without being racist. As for materialistic - I'm not. I don't think money makes you happy. But money leads to choices and security and those two things can or do make you happy.

Why shouldn't a disruptive child be removed? That's the way life works. If I told my boss I didn't want to do what had been asked of me and then threw things around the room and needed to be restrained, what would be the consequences?

The opportunities I would like for my children are for them to be happy, secure and to be able to make their own choices in life. By giving them the best possible start in life, I think I'm giving them the most options. What do you mean by 'down to earth'? My boys aren't helicoptered into school to avoid the poor people! As I said, at 5 and 2 they're too young to understand it all properly but of course I'll explain to them how some people don't have the things they have etc. Your parents paid for your education. Did you manage to be a good person despite that?

DH, boys and I have lived all over the world. Besides a brief stint in the US, they've tended to be poorer countries. I think that a 'real, down to earth' experience doesn't have to mean not taking advantage of opportunities you have. I can mean understanding your privilege too. You don't have to give it up to become a better person - I'm sure you aren't insulting enough to suggest that children from state schools are better people or have a better understanding of life.

I found reading and replying to your post interesting but have a question. What are the opportunities you weant for your child? The figures don't lie; children from public schools get better grades, better jobs and earn more money. By giving them those opportunities, they can decide if they want to be a charity worker in Africa, a farmer, a hermit or a stock broker. You're giving them the most options and the best chance of being whatever they want to be.

*or you're very unusual - perhaps in a good way

Maybebabybee

Did you see how stilllovingymsheep gave an intelligent reply and I tried to explain myself? How about you elaborate on,

"Utter bollocks. There's a huge difference between, say, being able to afford a fancy car and your children getting a vastly superior education along with all the benefits that presents over some equally able children who happen to be poorer."

Why is a nicer house, better car etc different? They are both simply making the most of what you have. My children attending their school doesn't make your child's education any worse. In fact, they're reducing class sizes and so, helping.

I'll tell you what I mean stillloving. I mean a school where 50% of the staff left after a head had been in post fir two years. I mean a school where a significant minority were: stealing, assaulting, making threats on facebook, a pyromaniac episode, and not least creating havoc in a year group, minor stuff was effing and blinding at staff. A school lauded by the Sutton Trust but whose results were declining year on year. It wasn't regarded as dire, not by a long chalk, oh no.

For those who say they want their children to mix and befriend all members of society, do you really mean that? Would you really be happy if your teenager got in with the crowd on an inner London estate where a couple of the 15 year olds were already dating gang members, or are you thinking your dc would befriend the child like the one in "About a Boy".

At the school my DD attended there were plenty of derogatory comments about posh kids (there was a ghastly mini apartheid and although the London Day Schools are very diverse the children are broader and it doesn't exist there). My daughters circle was a fairly restricted one which was almost all white, almost all girls with professional or semi-professional parents who supported education massively and most of whom were slightly or greatly left leaning. It was the most restricting strata I have ever come across. For me the diversity issue doesn't wash - my children's friends in the Indy sector have been far more diverse. DS's - his black friend, his Asian friend, his friend on a bursary who lives in la housing in London, his Chinese friend and his white friends ranging from multi millionaires to boys living in London terraces. The boys who went to the comp after primary continued to mix with similar children with similar backgrounds and their parents said things like "oh it's ok when you get there because "those children" are in the lower sets and they don't really get involved with the extra curricular stuff.". You know the parents with principles who wouldn't have sent their children independent because it supported elitism.

I think it's lovely to think that one's child might be upset if their friend disappeared due to bad behaviour. At 12/13 if that behaviour involves assault, theft, constant fighting and disruption, your child will have been swerving that friend who might have gone off the rails because he/she got involved with the wrong crowd. Or might never have been your child's friend in the first place. When a child like that disappears there is probably more likely to be a sigh of relief. I wouldn't be prepared to teach a child like that and neither are many, many teachers which is why many of the really good ones leave London, especially when the SLT isn't supportive.

OP my experiences are London based. Education in London is not the same as the rest of the country.

Ah yes, you also touched on CAMHS and blamed the government. The last government introduced waiting targets in line with those for physical conditions and this is now trickling through and will firm part of the NICE regulations. Under this government, where I live has just pumped an additional £4m into CAMHS. The money came from the CCG which diverted funds to CAMHS from other areas. It has also centralised bookings and admin doing away with several satellites that soaked up resources. Services are now being offered beyond 9-5 which I something that should have been looked at years ago but apparently the staff liked 9-5 hours! It supports young people with MH problems (probably tier 2) to access services outside school hours, minimising school time lost before their condition escalates. There were people in CAMHS, and quite senior ones, who didn't get that!!!!

Do you genuinely not understand the difference?

Driving a fancy car or living in a big house makes no difference whatsoever to the opportunities you have in life. They're both largely unimportant things (in my opinion).

Whereas the education you get is something that can determine the course of your entire life. The privately educated in this country make up the vast majority of high powered positions in politics, finance and similar. Do you think that's fair? I don't. I believe that all children should have equal educational opportunities irrespective of economic background.

I don't have the magic solution to this problem. But is it fair? No. Am I justified in being angry about it? Yes.

It is not the same as driving as expensive car. If you don't see that, well, that says more about you than about me.

maybe

I guess it does say more about me then.

Are you saying that the difference is if I spend my money on a car then they travel in more comfort and safety and that's fine with you but if I choose to spend money on their education it makes you angry because they get more benefit? How about holidays? We were thinking about The Seychelles as I'm a keen diver. Let me know if I can.

Life isn't fair. It's a game of chance. When things are going your way you should maximise on it though.

You're quite an angry person, aren't you?

Beau - I think it's absolutely understandible you only want your dd to mix with high achieving children from supportive homes, and that you have socially engineered her education so that she doesn't come into contact with disadvantaged children.

That's you. Your child.

Can you see that some of us are looking beyond our own interests and our own children and thinking about the general wellbeing of society and the rights and interests of all children?

You can't defend the principle of an unequal education system which compounds disadvantage and further polarises society, you can simply say 'I don't give a shit about children generally, just my child'.

Enter - you are focusing on adults.

Let's rephrase:

Is it morally right and defensible to spend twice as much on the education of the most socially advantaged children as on the most socially disadvantaged children? Is it fair to children? Is it good for society?

I think the answer would have to be 'no'.

You have entirely missed my point minifingerz. I want my children to mix with all sorts of people but I draw the line at criminal behaviour that schools don't manage and which achieves the educational achievement of all, disproportionately probably the educational achievement of the children off the estates who work hard and want to do well, but might not have the best parental support and have to watch their step with this element as much if not more outside school as inside school. They are the ones I really feel for - they are the truly lost children - their parents don't care about education and their environment including the one at school isn't nurturing them either.

Yes the independent sector is privileged but that doesn't make the form of "apartheid" that exists in many London schools right. It certainly doesn't make for a diverse environment where everyone mixes nicely. Don't you think it's a bit shocking that the children's friends at an independent school were more diverse than dd's were at a state comprehensive? And that wasn't dd's engineering that was just the innate culture of the school. It was the same at schools where other friends from primary went to too - and not underperforming schools, outstanding ones that parents strive to get their children into.

Mini fingerz has put it better than I did.

There is no comparison between going on a nice holiday and driving an expensive car and sending your DC to private school. Two of those things are just lifestyle choices which really don't have any bearing on a child's future, and one of those things is (IMO) one of the biggest contributing factors to inequality in society.

If that opinion makes me angry then yes, I am angry and I won't apologise for it.

I'm not angry because my DC won't get decent opportunities in life. They will, because DP and I are interested in and value education and in my experience and his those factors are far more influential on children than what school they go to.

Incidentally, I am not sitting here bitter because you can afford it and I can't. Between us we're on over six figures. We do drive a relatively nice car. We do live in a nice (but small) flat. We do go on nice holidays. We could afford to send our DC to private school. We choose not to.

We don't live in an area with particularly good state schools either. Just normal ones.

Answering your question to Enter Mini. The fact that twice as much is spent on an independent education is irrelevant. Parents chose to spend that money out of net income, the tax they have paid is funding places for children in the state sector and the indy parents are not using those places. Effectively therefore those parents are paying three times as much per child whilst their own child benefits only from twice as much.

I think that's a bit of a dodgy argument because once I have paid tax on my income, I am free to do what I please with what remains of it.

I would happily pay more tax (and I'm not putting details on here of our tax bill for last year) but if that were so, I'd want a lot more say over how that money is spent and I'd want it to be spent wisely. In the years when more money was being pumped into education than now (60s, 70s) there weren't actually that many improvements. In fact in those years I believe the basics deteriorated considerably.

PS. the school I went to had such a bad reputation the police used to wait outside on a Friday afternoon to break up fights. I did very well there. By contrast one of my best friends went to one of the best private schools in London. She was so stressed out by the academic pressure and attitudes there she had a nervous breakdown and finished her A levels at a state comp. She's now a doctor.

What looks good on paper isn't necessarily so, and vice versa.

We chose to send our to state schools maybe until they stopped working for them. I'm afraid we weren't quite principled enough to let the system detrimentally impact our own children who, in my opinion, need to be taken rather better care of than a car or a house. Let's hope you never have a child crying with frustration because the class isn't going fast enough or crying (and self harming) because they are really scared about what might kick off in the classroom today.

I agree with Enteryour on most points she makes.
On this question above to us and other fee paying school parents "Is it morally right and defensible to spend twice as much on the education of the most socially advantaged children as on the most socially disadvantaged children? Is it fair to children? Is it good for society?"

My answer is yes. It is no different from reading to your child each night ratherthan leaving it at home alone in otder to read to disadvantaged children down the road. It is a moral good to do good unto your child. If we also do good to others in our life and work (as most of us try to do ) that's a double bonus but it is never morally wrong to do the best for your child whether that's good food, a nice home life with love and care or a good education. Now that might be in a good state school or a good fee paying school.

It is good for society to spare the state the cost of educating the 500,000 children in fee paying schools. Secondly those of us mother who work and pay a lot of tax are also paying huge amounts out for state schools for other children including those of mothers who don't work - we are working to support the state school system in a way a mother who pays very little or no tax does not so we are doubly benefiting the state school system. Thirdly our children are very well educated so that provides massive benefits to the country from running the country to becoming leading judges and top doctors. So good is the fee paying sector that parents all over the world want to send their children to English schools - some of the best education on the planet is in the English fee paying schools and the products of those schools go out and do good for others. I am not saying my family members who are doctors in the NHS would not have been doctors had they gone to state schools but I bet they provide extremely competent care not least because of a huge contribution their private education made to them both as people and educationally.

I agree children need to be taken better care of than a car or house, did you not read my post

I'm sorry your DC went through that. But the vast majority of parents who send their DC to private school aren't doing it because they tried them in a state school first and they ended up self harming, are they.

I am always fascinated by how many private school parents seem to live in the catchment of extraordinarily awful state schools. Considering that most troubled state schools are in areas of significant social deprivation, what are these affluent middle class people doing there? How does the Waitrose can even find them?