School fees have risen by 19% in the space of 12 months

[Findingfactsaboutfees]

AIBU to think this is outrageous ?! Fees are exorbitant anyhow and in the last 12 months we have had an increase of 19% by way of 2 increases in a 12 month period. Fees per year for the senior school are £16690 per year and do not include state of the art facilities as other local schools do. The junior school fees aren't much less either! This is a school in the north of England. If you are paying for education, where are you based and how much do you pay? I wonder whether it is comparable.

Private education will only be for the ultra-rich if fees continue to rise at the rate that they are. It is unsustainable for most working professionals who are comfortable but not ultra-wealthy! Parents locally have tried to take their children out but can't as there are no state school places to be had within a 12 mile radius. The only other option is home schooling which isn't possible when the parents are working full time. We're not yet at the point where we are thinking of taking our child out of school but hearing the plight of those who are in the process of trying to is worrying. I've always been a labour voter but if they do go ahead with the introduction of VAT, I fear it's going to get even worse.

@Dobby123456 i didn’t say that the op was being unreasonable, in fact I don’t think I used the word unreasonable in my post?
A 19% rise in ANYTHING is going to be difficult for many families. And let’s me honest, it’s not just one thing. I’ve just bought milk for £1.30. This time last year, it was 89p. That’s an increase of over 40%.

I don’t send my dc to private school, however I fully appreciate the worry that increasing fees (on top of all the other increasing costs), must be causing for families, as well as the frustration of those who could just about afford it before but are now struggling feel.

However, I stand by the statement that those who use private schools tend to do so because they offer something state schools don’t. And the reason that it’s not (usually) offered by state schools is the cost. Those extras now cost the private school more. Stopping or reducing the extras means that there’s less to differentiate them from a state school. They need to keep offering them, and so they need to charge more. I understand why parents feel it’s unfair, I understand it prices out many who could previously afford it. It where else is the funding for these extras going to come from?

I don’t think the op needs to be happy about the rise in costs, but I do think it’s inevitable at the moment.

your arguments were that you didn’t want your child’s education disrupted.

i was simply saying that yours probably wouldn’t be (I guess apart from a stretched school budget if pans increase) but that other children at your child’s school (or who would be without these increases) would be affected.

its taken a while but yes
resorting to swearing and abuse.

Because you have to identify "why" schools are doing badly now. I think most logical people will agree that its a lack of funding. But where did that money go?

1. The UK is getting older (so ratio of taxpayers to retired people is awful). Also worth stating that this ratio will get worse over the next 10-15 years.

1. (1) means that more tax revenue has been funneled to pay for their benefits: State Pension, NHS, and Social Care.

1. Because of (2), less funding was made available for education. This is why over the last 13 years the sector crumbled.

1. Because of the UKs FPTP voting system the Conservatives funelled way too much money into (2) to the detriment of the public school education system in the UK (3).

1. Adding 1-4 up gets you the current situation of poorly maintained buildings, overworked teachers, and poor per pupil funding.

These are the facts.

Charging VAT will not solve the funding problem created by the population skewing older. You would be chasing your own tail trying to extract tax revenue from a very small slice of working people (upper middle class really and a thin slice of wealthy). And that funding will be volatile as private schools will close over time.

So you will end up with about £1bn extra revenue but with more students now using the (crumbling) public education system. Funding per pupil in this scenario will drop in real terms because you will be sending increasing amounts of money to the older folks in the UK (who are retired, don't work, and are a segment of the population that is increasing in size. 25% will be over 60 in 2035).

This is why the VAT issue will not accomplish anything. Its basically just populism and makes you worse off.

The only way forward (that i see) is taxing the older retired population (who also happens to be the wealthiest in the UK now) to obtain the funding. This policy would also sustainable in the long-run as that cohort of the population is increasing in the UK.

A stereotype is defined as a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Whilst your figures tell you something, they don't tell you everything and I stand by my assertion that you are stereotyping. This is further evidenced by you questioning my account. You have a preconceived idea of who sends their kids to private school and clearly have no desire to think differently. We are not in the top 10 percent of earners as a household and we don't fit your stereotype.

Honestly, that’s bollocks. There will always be people in differing circumstances. This is a parenting website and parenting problems are not only the domain of those with little money.

No that only came up because private parents wanted in year admissions to schools that don't have spaces. I was pointing out that spaces are available in less popular schools. Private ed parents need to realise you carnt just demand a place in a certain school mid year when it's full.

A million fewer kids' worth of funding could probably do more than one thing within the overall schools space.

I'd be loath to see money flow out of a schools budget that has already been massively deprioritised relative to other things.

Incorrect.
No person here has said they have any right to jump straight into any year group in any school of their choosing.
Please post the PP that said this if I am correct.
You are assuming things here.

As previously stated looking at the fact that the vast majority of private school pupils come from families who are in the top 10% of income earning households ( and others that have access to wealth) I don't believe that there will be any kind of mass exoudous from private schools or anything like the 20% you are predicting.

Yes they have. They said they will complain. I've pointed out complaining won't work in state schools.

And I'm not going back to post past posts. If you want to find it find it yourself.

"Whilst your figures tell you something, they don't tell you everything and I stand by my assertion that you are stereotyping"

I'm not stereotyping, stating facts. The majority of private school parents are not scrimping and saving to make their fee payments, nor are they the parents of scholars, nor are they living in areas not considered nice. Most are living the lifestyles that one would associate with high income households.

"You have a preconceived idea of who sends their kids to private school and clearly have no desire to think differently"

I know exactly who sends their children to private schools as less than 1% of children in each income decile up to the 90th are educated privately. As stated you are the exception.

I questioned your assertion because I have heard the same story over and over again "poor local schools, lack of opportunties etc" from people who lived within reach of good state schools but wanted to justify sending their kid there without admitting it was to buy them a privilege.

There are of course SOME parents outside of the top 10%, but it ain't many.

Most areas don't have grammar schools.

So the academic performance of hypothetical ex-private school pupils moving to state school is irrelevant.

I am not sure about in-year admissions in grammar school areas, especially where the pupil moving has not sat the 11+.

@hillaryswankfan top 10% or not, our mortgage has gone up and bills like anyone else. If you are reliant on income to pay fees, it will only stretch so far.

We would pull ours out at sixth form - so as not to disrupt gcse years- and if we had younger DC we would certainly not do private primary

That 10% is not distributed equally geographically speaking. Most of that 10% is in the Oxford - Cambridge - London triangle and Surrey/Kent.

What you will see is that schools in more rural areas will have problems (less people in the 10% band). Some of them will likely close as not enough people would be able to pay so they would become unviable.

That means that state schools in the rural areas would absorb some of those kids (I say some because other parents would move to another area with better state schools)

This means that rural state schools would likely bear the brunt of this policy, further exacerbating the UKs current problems regarding inequality.

She quite clearly says in the op that she's always been a labour voter

Talk of holidays is still allowed when people are struggling to heat/eat.

Talk of non essentials such as clothing, beauty supplies is still allowed. Even buy to let properties or 2nd homes.

Talk about anything that people can buy for kids is allowed - music lessons, swimming lessons, driving lessons, experiences.

The OP is allowed to talk about private school fees and that is no excuse for people to post remarks that are unkind. Commenting on a thread you dislike isn't mandatory.

How would it read if I changed your post to: "Yeah, not really feeling sorry for people who can't afford to feed their kids as they chose to have them"?

Talk of holidays is still allowed when people are struggling to heat/eat.

Yes, although complaints about one's usual luxury fortnight in (wherever) being so much more expensive this year would probably not get a great response - there would probably suggestions that the OP look for a cheaper option....

hillaryswankfan by providing a blanket judgement then you are indeed stereotyping. 1% of private school pupils are on a full bursary. That's 5000 children you are immediately placing judgement on based on your beliefs.

I questioned your assertion because I have heard the same story over and over again "poor local schools, lack of opportunties etc" from people who lived within reach of good state schools but wanted to justify sending their kid there without admitting it was to buy them a privilege.

Privilege is bought everywhere, private school or no private school. I would love it if I felt my child would thrive in our local school but I know that he wouldn't because they don't even offer the sports he plays as part of the curriculum (hockey and cricket). If I can buy these opportunities as part of his school day then I absolutely will. Just like others who have moved into a catchment of an outstanding school to access their facilities would too. It is interesting to note that a majority of those in the top 10% income choose not to send their children to private school. This would suggest that they feel they are able to meet their educational needs through the state system, potentially through the privilege of living in an area with good schools.

Ideally, access to good education would be equal to everyone in the state system but that is not going to happen any time soon.

"That 10% is not distributed equally geographically speaking. Most of that 10% is in the Oxford - Cambridge - London triangle and Surrey/Kent."

No, close to 0% of children in households outside of the top 10% are educated privately. Children from the top 10% income households are overwhelmingly over represented in private schools. It is not about income distribution.

" Some of them will likely close as not enough people would be able to pay so they would become unviable."

I took a look at the private secndary schools around the North East of Engliand where I am from, almost all of them are priced abosultely on the average for the country ( even the ones that are rural). They aren't attended by people earning the average in this area, they certainly are attended by people who are significantly higher earners than average ( think about 15k a year for day for the 5/6 I looked at).

There may be some exceptions, but the fact is , most parents at private schools will be able to afford an increase and the schools do not deserve their charitable status.

The current thinking you see in the UK is:

"My life is a bit miserable right now so by making others feel my misery I will feel a bit better"

Managed decline of a country looks like this.

Aspiration is crushed because it makes people feel worse about their own lives.

Until this mentality changes in the UK I see no healthy long-term future for the country.

She's not provided a blanket judgement at all. She's provided actual data than demonstrate that many of the anecdotes, emotive stereotypes and minority cases on this thread are, in fact, not representing the vast majority.

Actually you are quite right.
160,000 get bursaries so I’m guessing it will be even more than that.

@hillaryswankfan my DC’s private school sponsors a state primary and has helped to turn it round from “inadequate” to “outstanding”. Imagine if instead of spouting bile about private schooling, people used their energy to encourage those private schools which are not doing enough to do more.