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

Absolutely ecres. DH went to Oxford from the local comp. DS is at Oxford from an independent London day school. DH freely acknowledges that at 21 DS is better educated than he was. It didn't stop DH getting to the very top bit it was a harder journey and he had to work very hard on his confidence.

It is the difference between being well educated and well qualified. In my opinion a little bit of hope left our society when grammar schools were abolished but that is a different debate.

I don't agree with a lot of this. If an able child (or any child for that matter) isn't challenged enough at school, parents can very well help with that. Parents who value education in any case will make all the difference in any school. There are for example kids in private schools whose parents may have money but who are not really educated in a substantial, meaningful way and in my view that will make all the difference.

Ecres, there is something in that. The key focus at the moment in my school is challenge and rigour in lessons. As you say, almost impossible to differentiate a lesson to provide that for every pupil in a class of 30.
Of course smaller class sizes are easier. I have 2 challenging very low ability classes but there are only 14 and 9 pupils in each. I couldn't cope with anymore! This is mainstream state btw.
School provision is obviously very much due to location though, some of the descriptions of state schools on this thread are so far from my experience it's untrue.

There are bad parents and bad schools, in both sectors, of course. You're not disagreeing with me in saying that. They are mostly irrelevant to questions of whether over-representation of the independently educated in very selective positions proves bias in those selecting, because the pool those positions are selected from consist mostly of people whose parenting and schooling were not bad.

I disagree, I'm afraid, that parents can practically "make up for" lack of challenge in school. Wasted time stays wasted. Time spent on extra challenge at home is time the child who was challenged in school hours gets to spend on something else that may itself have value, whether it's yet more challenge or free play or an extracurricular activity or whatever. You only get to spend a given hour once.

(that was a reply to stillloving)

I agree with everything you've said ecres and appreciate your thoughtful posts.

It is the difference between being well educated and well qualified.

I love this sentence. It succinctly pinpoints the problem.

I'm very well educated but there is no way I would assume I could adequately challenge my DC across all the curriculum.

Science, maths, English, history, MFL, AL, art, DT, geography? No chance.

Nor would I want to. After DC have been at school all day, eaten and done their homework, why on earth would they want to have a lesson from me in the unification of Italy (assuming I knew much about it)?

If an able child (or any child for that matter) isn't challenged enough at school, parents can very well help with that

? If an able child isn't challenged enough, then it's not the right school or the school is failing them.

It's not parents' job to teach the children, it's the school's. If parents have the time and inclination to supplement what the school provides, that's up to them. But many can't - they may both work full time, or they many not have the level of education that would make that possible.

Saying able dc can be challenged at home instead is as silly as saying the parents of average or struggling dc can just make up for it at home, so appropriate schooling doesn't matter. Able dc don't all have parents who both can and will teach them instead of school, in exactly the same way not every average/ struggling child automatically has parents who can't and won't support them. It also ignores the fact that a lack of challenge 6 hours a day, and in many cases even a lack of suitable courses, is a huge and often insurmountable barrier to achievement.

I'm well educated now but didn't start until my thirties.
two of our children were badly educated too.
One of our children is receiving the best education we can provide for her.

There are good schools and bad in both sectors and agree you can't generalise about any type of provision.
wrt SEN the state sector let both of our state educated dc down terribly.
We mention our concerns in the private sector and within half a term we will have managed several tests, diagnosis and plan put in place for next year. It's amazing how quickly you can be seen if you save and pay for it.
The others stood no chance in their state schools, bad management of resources, awful SENCO and lack of funding.
However, I wouldn't believe that that was the case for all schools in those sectors, that would be ridiculous.

Parents can (should?) enhance their children's education, but I don't think they should be held responsible for filling in whole gaps that are left from bad teaching. So visiting museums, exhibitions, encouraging wider reading yes, teaching the Italian unification over breakfast, possibly not.
The reason why these threads get heated is because most people don't have the choice of paying for their DCs education. So when people come on a deride state provision it is unpalatable because that is the only option for the majority of people.
It's like saying that you simply can't believe that people would choose to live in a small terraced house, the only house to live in is a 5 bed detached surely?
People don't have the choice on whether or not to tighten their belts and choose the private sector, and that is unfair.
Of course if you are paying for your dcs schooling the classes are smaller and the results usually better. Otherwise why would you pay? That does not mean that all state schools are useless or that everyone attending them are not being well educated.

I am obviously not talking about a parent tutoring a child at home or providing extra lessons! I am talking about a well educated, interested, thoughtful parent being a massive factor in the child's life, far more important IMO than school. This is the atmosphere a child grows up in: the curiosity that is instilled at home, the interesting discussions, the values that are taught at home just by being together, all that. I think that's what is important and school is overvalued. School is of course important but in my view it's secondary.

80k above is right that we should ask by those of us being the 8% educated in private schools do so well in life. Part of it is expectations. Plenty of women on here say oh I just want the children to be happy or oh we really need nurses and care home workers - a kind of acceptance that it's fine not to earn much as a woman (or man) which I think is less likely in private schools. It is the same when people from not well off homes who went to state schools leave good universities - their family will think wow she became a teacher, we've really arrived; whereas another family might say only a teacher, why not earning £300k a year in the City? So an expectation difference.

Another reaosn might be the private educastion has something in it the state schools don't provide. I am not sure it is confidence. Whilst I know I can do just about anything I was very shy at school. I didn't emerge not shy. Personality types still remain.

I don't think contacts really help at all. In law it's excellence at exams that gets you in and knowing and loving the law. I study it every day of the year and have for 30 years. I adore it. I am not even sure how you use a contact - do you call up and say I've a richt thickie child here who clearly could never get through interview on their own merits, but will you take them on to ruin your practice and bypass HR and byopass the initial on line application system which requries more UCAS points than they have?

Accent probably helps a bit with some jobs. State schools could easily make all children speak like children in private schools if they wanted to - but it's politically unacceptable. Even my sons in their fee paying school had to show boys in the class on google that it is not wrong to say aitch (which is how we speak) rather than the haitch many of the boys use.

"Plenty of women on here say oh I just want the children to be happy or oh we really need nurses and care home workers "
Really? I don't think I have seen plenty of women posting that they don't care about their children's education- they just want them to be happy.

And the massive flaw in your "oh just go and earn mega bucks" argument is that your mega bucks are riding on the backs of women on low wages. You can't have one without the other.

I am not deriding state education and I am certainly not deriding the concept or aim of state funded education. But, if we won't admit that private education is generally better, then we cannot move on to thinking about how to improve state education within the constraints of the public purse.

It is the difference between being well educated and well qualified.

Anyway here are some stats:

The report shows that in many of the UK’s top professions there is a hugely disproportionate proportion of privately educated people compared to the general profile of the UK population.

Just 7% of the UK public attended private school, which compares to 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of Whitehall permanent secretaries and 50% of members of the House of Lords.

But again - perhaps wealthy people are just better, perhaps they work harder are more intelligent and therefore access these professions on the back of hard graft and ability.

Perhaps.

still of course parents can do those things.

I would bet most of us do on this thread. My DC live a very cliche existence of theatre, art gallery and improving literature . But these things don't bridge academic gaps generally.

bert you do see posters talking about just wanting to be happy all the time. Ditto their children. Some MN parents are allergic to their DC failing at anything. Always better to be a big fish in a tiny pond.

And they will always criticise ambitious women, just as you felt the need to.

why on earth would someone think 'oh they only became a teacher' user???!!! In your opinion, who exactly will be teaching our children if everyone aims to become a city lawyer? Does it also occur to you that many people might not want or enjoy the kind of lifestyle that a City career entails? Has it occurred to you that many people choose & enjoy being a teacher and that it's a perfectly honourable, fine profession? Not everyone wants or aims for the massive house / massive car / expensive holidays, I wonder why some people find that hard to see.

I do not "feel the need" to criticise ambitious women.

I feel the need to criticise people of either gender who openly dispise people who do not earn huge salaries while riding on their backs. Very different.

And if it is not the right school or the school is failing the student moving in the state sector for the majority of parents is not an option. Jobs, housing, childcare, availability of school places can all mean that parents in the state sector have to make do with what they have.

Perhaps that is what is the best of going private, there is the option to move.

But....

....tie yourself to a particular school through staff discounts, bursaries, scholarships etc and you are back to being as stuck as parents in the state sector having to make do with a school which doesnt work plus paying for the privilage.

chip I think the reasons that those from private schools dominate various industries is complex.

Many of these industries do require a high level of ability as displayed by high level qualifications. Private schools tend to do very well at assisting the highly able get the highest qualifications.

Many state schools are less geared towards this. Not just in terms of resources but in terms of policy decisions taken by SLT etc.

I work at a very selective university that spends a lot of time and money trying to widen access. However, the biggest problem we face is that too many applicants from state schools have the wrong academic profile (the wrong subjects or inadequate grades).

Another reason we see such a proliferation of the privately educated in these professions is the expectation factor. These pupils are encouraged to consider them, not only by the schools, but parents and peers. Sometimes the expectations can even be a little too single minded IMHO, but that's not my business.

Of course some DC in state schools are encouraged to think about these industries. However there are also parents who think they are 'not for the likes of us'. Parents who don't encourage tertiary education (a waste of money). Schools who dislike the idea of anything 'elite' etc etc .

Then there is the issue of cold hard cash. These days university costs are high. Post graduate courses often don't attract funding. Internships require parents to fund periods of unpaid work. No matter how good your school, if your parents cannot or will not make up help financially, you can struggle.

I completely disagree about contacts User, especially in law. I know of lots of people who accept that they gained a training contract because of who they knew/were related to.

DH's cousin is one and she got her training contract due to DH! She may well have got one on her own merits (very bright, excellent academics, well rounded) but hadn't up until that point.

bert give over.

No one is riding on anyone else's back. Paying for domestic help is not an act of capitalist oppression (providing one pays fairly) any more so than shopping for groceries in M&S or filling up your car in a petrol station, or taking a leak in a public loo.

We all accept the services of the low paid as part of the texture of our lives

But it's only women who employ domestic help who are singled out for specific critisism in this regard.

The question is not whether it is right to use the services of the lowly paid, but why women are generally doing that work.

Of course money is the deciding factor here. Many industries for example offer unpaid internships / volunteer work that only well off people can afford to do.In such positions, DC make contacts, get supervision from people who will then know them and perhaps consider them more easily for jobs if they're good etc.

I do not have a problem with people having domestic help.

I do have a problem with people of either gender openly despising the people who provide their domestic help and refusing to acknowledge that they are only in a position to make the choices they do because of those people.