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 think that if you are paying out of an earned income of £60k, you need to think very hard about what you would do if your income dropped suddenly. There are only a few defined points in the academic cycle when it is straightforward for a child to move out of the independent sector and into state - and the most attractive state schools are unlikely to have places when you need them. Friendships also matter if you suddenly have uproot your child because eg you are made redundant. Would you eg sell your home and buy somewhere smaller if you had to? Parents often make the mistake of assuming that if they have already paid for a number of years, the independent will look kindly on them for some sort of bursary if things suddenly get tough. It tends not to be like that anymore. Existing pupils usually have to compete on an open playing field with external candidates for means tested bursaries, and the academic standard of bursary candidates tends to be extremely high.

There are huge inequalities in the state system, which we all pay for. Inequity of facilities, extra curricular offerings, governance, opportunity. Take a look at the websites of a range of state schools. I find it pretty abhorrent that the school nearest us (large school on a tiny plot like a prison yard) can't even afford a lick of paint and is being forced to sell off its (neglected) netball court. While a school in the next county is boasting about its new state of the art fitness and drama centres. Suggest people focus on putting these right before they worry about the tiny minority who pay for alternative schooling.

It astounds me that so many mc posters fail to see that their local state schools aren't representative of what many dc are offered. Ditto London schools, where the dense population naturally dictates there will be a greater social mix at many schools. But that just isn't the case for everyone across the country.

And for the pp who quoted my description of dire, thanks for jumping to the conclusion my opinion is based on snobbery and ignorance. You couldn't be further from the truth, and I'm amused at the idea of someone who visits socially deprived areas through work attempting to educate me on the subject.

I'm not criticising anyone for having access to good state schools, and sending their dc to them. But until such time the anti private lobby stop taking advantage of their situation, and are willing to turn down the good state schools, to spread their dc through the dire ones, they aren't in a position to criticise private parents for doing the same.

maybee I don't judge a school as bad based on results/ ofsted or because it has a deprived cohort. Neither bothers me at all. A bad school is one that fails it's pupils.

"maybee I don't judge a school as bad based on results/ ofsted or because it has a deprived cohort. Neither bothers me at all. A bad school is one that fails it's pupils"
How do you define this?

As a couple of PPs have mentioned do consider the long term in this. It isnt simply about being able to afford fees today but also throughout your DC's education.

There was an incredibly sad thread a while back where a mother was having to withdraw her DD from a private school just before she sat her GCSEs because the family had had a run of financial bad luck and had quite simply run out of money and had exhausted all lines of available credit.

This for us was the final clincher for why we decided to send our DCs to state schools even when we were expats and my employer would have paid the fees. In the end the decision did prove to be the right one. A few years later I was made redundant unexpectedly. Traumatic enough but if we had had also to remove DCs from schools then it would have been even worse.

Our choice (Hobson's choice of one) local school is not great. In and out of special measures like it's caught on the door handle. On the other hand oldest left with straight As at GCSE. Youngest looks likely to do something similar.

If you have to scrimp, wear second hand clothes, run an unreliable car, put off household maintenance, never go on holiday to pay school fees then remember that this will also be part of your DCs experience.

I can afford private education, which gives my child the same as I received for free in the 1970s. This is not fair. Thousands no longer have the opportunity to do as I did and have a free education to whatever level they are capable and willing to achieve. I took my child out of the state system because it was the only way to keep my job (if I'd wanted to go p/t in order to make school runs, I'd have been out of my job as I was firmly told it was a f/t post only) and so this way I am able to carry on paying back into the system instead of claiming from it.

I'm sorry my child and all those other children can't receive the same high-quality free education I did, even though that stopped my mother having the career she really wanted as there was no wraparound care then, so she was stuck with p/t secretarial jobs to fit around school hours. There is always a cost, often a hidden one and disproportionally hitting the mothers.

The only way we can get true equality is for everyone to miraculously be born with the same IQ and the same capacity for learning and the same parents who are involved in their children's education. And all have got the same excellent school, and have the same computers at home and the same... you get the gist. But we don’t have this. And the challenge is how to educate the child who has SEND and the child who is in MENSA aged 5 so both can have happy, comfortable and healthy lives with no worry about where the next meal comes from. Extra support for most children who need it can only come from the state, which means taxes, which means having enough high-income people to pay them, which means they have a good education… and so surely we shouldn’t be moaning about private school alumni who have a good chance of providing those taxes and aren’t an additional burden on the state school system!

FWIW, I volunteer to work with young people, encouraging them to strive for their full potential. I’m awaiting further training next month to go into schools to do this, as a direct result of a thread here on MN that I found challenging.

I do agree with a PP who talks about diversity being better in state schools. I think that largely depends on the area. In London and other major or large cities, I have absolutely no doubt that diversity is greater. But in smaller towns and rural areas? I very much doubt it. It is certainly not true here. The only real difference is where they live/parental income. If you sending your child to our local school for "diversity" of culture or religion etc then it would be a waste of time.

The catchment areas for our schools are based surrounding areas. So the children from the most deprived areas tend to go to primary together, as they tend to closer to the same schools. Children who live in less deprived areas tend to go to the same schools for the same reasons. Not all that much diversity.

Many parents move into areas for specific catchment areas to get them into the best schools. Is that wrong too?

And in answer to Mini- I think it is moral imperative to do the best you can for your child. Society, as a whole, could chose to spend much more per head on education and improve state education. It hasn't chosen to do so, as yet.

I think the argument should surely be that state provision should be improved? The inequality in education is as much between excellent state sector and the failing state sector as it is between the latter and public schools. My DD going to a poor or average state school would not benefit the other children in that school any more than the fact that she attends her current school is detrimental to their education.

I pay taxes a proportion of which goes towards education, but pay pay school fees on top of that. What ever I do with my net income is my choice.

Parents moving to the catchment of a good state school don't seem to get such opprobrium, yet they are using their financial position to ensure there children get a better education. Same goes for parents who pay for tutors and so on. You can never achieve true equality, because children from advantage backgrounds will always have some advantages, even without a private education.

That should be "what I do with my net income..."

OP - to answer your question: income 12 yrs ago was 17% higher than yours. We started investing at birth approx £500 a month. We needed to assume a 25-33% scholarship age 11yrs to afford fees £11-12k. We did not consider private at primary. At secondary age we could have sent one DC privately. This would have meant no support at uni, cars run until repair was worth more than replacement, one UK holiday per year and no school trips.

At age 11yrs salaries were just at 6 figures (if I were full time) As it happened, the scholarship was not offered. This meant rethink. Our back up plan was an out of catchment secondary and using the savings to move there. (The reason we started saving was the local secondary which had been failing for years before being closed). We were offered a different failing school, not one of the 3 choices (nearest 1 mile away). It was a fraught time. DD refused to go and was highly distressed. In this situation I would have paid. Yes I admit it. However, I was convinced that solving this problem could create many more later.

DD was eventually offered the good secondary, without us having to move. DD's friend E went to the private school on our road - without a scholarship. It is working out well for DD and her friend at their respective schools. However, one of E's parents has been forced to temporarily stop work. We cannot imagine how stressful E's family situation must be right now - and the pressure of finding fees. This is what I knew we wouldn't have the financial buffering for.

So yes I think you could afford it if you begin planning now. My DH (privately educated) now has the opportunity to move DD to private following a change in circs. But DH doesn't see the necessity any more. She is happy and on track for decent grades and we have spare £ for lots (and lots) of extra curricular.

Why not visit some good primaries and talk to local parents of children there. The main difference we found is sport and drama etc and after school care were included in private primaries. Also prep for 11+ entry might have meant a scholarship. However it seemed a lot of money to spend for not much gain. Our children have had access to these things through other ways.

Off the point and into opinion territory - when DD was born I felt v similar to you. This changed when she settled into a good primary. It wasn't all brilliant, but then it wasn't plain sailing for my friend's DD who had 3 changes of private primary. Taking a general overview, it worked out well.

In your circumstances I'd only consider secondary private school - and as a last resort. In the meantime perhaps you could look at gaining a broader perspective on what educational opportunities there are nearer to home, and across all sectors?

Mini fingers
"Maybe if more influential, professional and wealthy parents had a vested interest in making state education work we wouldn't have the problems we have now. :-("

As is pointed out ad nauseum on mumsnet, only 7% of children are educated privately which means they are spread pretty thinly across the country.
What could all these private school parents do which state school parents aren't doing already?
People such as yourself and many others on Mumsnet who are educated and care about their DCs education and will not use private education as a matter of principal - there are many very rich socialists who aren't hypocrites.
Isn't it rather patronising to state school parents to say that if only the 7% of parents who educated their children privately were to get involved then lo and behold, state school would improve?

I agree it's all version regional. I suspect a doctor's income will incerase however, not reduce and that the sick husband who is doing most of the childcare will get back to work and probably has a career which earns a fair bit so as the child gets older there will be more income from the husband too so that in this case on the thread the private school open is probably best, particularly as the mother went to one and they might well not have a second child.

It's certainly been an interesting thread. I support the poitns above that you can hardly say state schools are often as good as privates and then also say it's not fair some go to private. Not everyone is saying that just as many of us in private scools are not saying all state schools are bad. Here in outer London people go to all kinds of schools and what matters to one family (mulim fundamentalism or Steiner) is not going to be the same as someone else sending their child to the most academic of Bucks grammars or into London to St Paul's/NLCS/Westminster. private

"Isn't it rather patronising to state school parents to say that if only the 7% of parents who educated their children privately were to get involved then lo and behold, state school would improve?"

I absolutely agree. But if the people who decide that state school kids can be educated for 4 grand a year didn't have the option of sending their own children to schools that cost twice that a term it might concentrate their minds a little............

It's fees extras lessons trips holidays - not just the fees.

We are equal earners bringing in 80 k a year gross but we can't afford it.

We have just bought a house in the armpit of a fantastic and decades long outstanding state school circuit from lower to upper. We may move in the next eighteen years but for now with an affordable higher mortgage we are in a tiny village with one of the country's best non grammar state schools.

Sorry if this question has been asked, but how does this fit in re work?

If you have to drive her to and fro for 40 minutes each way, will this not make it hard for both you and your partner to work full time?

Do they offer good wraparound childcare and built-in extracurriculars--things that might make it easier for you and your partner to focus on your careers and earn more?

I would consider going private for primary school if my partner and I both worked long hours in high-paying jobs, and if I could find a good private school that offered everything (after school care, homework supervision, extracurriculars) on-site as a package. And if we had only one child. I would see it as part of the cost of maintaining my career at a high level, rather like paying for daycare when my child was tiny.

Otherwise--I think I would consider selling and moving to an area with better state primary schools, and having more money to spend on tutoring, extra curriculars, and educational experiences/days out/travel as a family.

I do think that even at good state primaries, the curriculum tends to be less challenging and academic than at most private primaries, from what I have heard and seen. On the other hand, I think that unless both parents are working really long hours, there may be cheaper ways of filling that gap! Working with your child at home and doing lots of educational activities with them, paying for some tutoring, stuff like that.

Private schools in the UK have become ridiculously expensive. It used to be normal for a professional couple to be able to put a couple of kids through a decent local private school provided they were not silly with the rest of their money. Not any more.

We have an income of circa 100k gross and it is tight. We don't have any exotic hols and don't buy anything we don't need. We adults wear our clothes until they fall to bits but make sure our two have all that they need. I don't have any regrets.

The biggest influence on a child's outcome is parental involvement, not the school you send them to

"The biggest influence on a child's outcome is parental involvement, not the school you send them to"

This. In spades.

Thanks to those sharing their experiences, it's really helpful to read

I will certainly be investigating other local primaries. It helps that in my line of work I meet a lot of people who have kids in local schools (mainly nurses!) that I can talk to. I'm sure there are schools that would suit her just fine, but some of the stories I've heard worry me a bit. I also accept that in the next 2 or 3 years things can change a lot!

I wouldn't want to spend every last penny on her education, I appreciate that family time, trips etc also contribute to a child's upbringing. We are lucky to live close to various outdoor activity type places, which we plan to take her to (national trust/forests/adventure parks etc). We have a Merlin pass, which if utilised is great value for money if you like that sort of thing

Unfortunately bundle parents have very little influence over schools, their policies, how resources are spent and these things do have an impact on our DC's education.

What influences are children is a slippery mixture of all manner of things. We the parents, the wider family, teachers, peers, the media...

"but some of the stories I've heard worry me a bit."

Take many of them with a pinch of salt. Especially things like 40+ classes.

What kind of stories do you hear OP that worry you? Perhaps all of us who do send our DC to local state schools can also offer our opinions and help you in this?

GetAHaircutCarl

Unfortunately bundle parents have very little influence over schools, their policies, how resources are spent and these things do have an impact on our DC's education

Parents' opinions carry far more weight in the public sector where they can vote with their wallets.

-------

bundle
The biggest influence on a child's outcome is parental involvement, not the school you send them to

Absolutely. Having said that, with two 'equal' parents, which child is more likely to get into a Russel Group Uni or get the top A levels?

"Absolutely. Having said that, with two 'equal' parents, which child is more likely to get into a Russel Group Uni or get the top A levels?" The child of middle class, reasonably affluent educated parents who understand how the system works. Regardless of sector. I often think how sad it is that the children who would most benefit from what a good private school offers are the ones who have no hope at all of going to one.

You can't generalise about schools in either sector. I wouldn't necessarily say that behaviour is better in a private school. It all comes down to how the individual school deals with it. Not all private schools have fantastic facilities either.

I've just moved my daughter from her independent school because the children (and their parents) are many of them badly behaved brats who have no respect for other people or their belongings. Academically I can't fault it - it has been brilliant. But I don't feel that it's an emotionally healthy environment for her.

moonbells thank you for that excellent post which hits the nail on the head. The Tories have long tried to sell the concept of "equal opportunities" as in "born equal." and that's crap of course.

I'm thinking back to the 1970s when I studied sociology (it was quite popular in those distant times..........) and there was a book called "Born to fail" - can't remember who wrote it (blame my age!) but it's still available on Amazon. There was a picture of a raggy looking child of about 5 on the front. And I don't think very much has changed over the years. Sad but true.