Discrepancy in attitude towards school fees and nursery fees

[Happysallie]

I find it very curious in the various debates around school fees that:

1. School fees at an avg of £1,250-1,500 pcm is the preserve of the rich due to the sums involved; but

2. Nursery fees at an avg. of £1,250-1,500 pcm is… just an ordinary expense that parents should plan for

Every parent of a child under four is effectively paying the equivalent to a private education, probably at a far earlier stage in their careers / earning power.

No observation on private education right or wrong, just bizarre to see people spending £1,500 a month on private school as impossibly wealthy while most parents I know are scraping by, begging and borrowing, fund £2-3k a month in nursery fees.

This more an observation at the acceptance of insane nursery fees, than the cost of private education!

This just proves the point of my post though.

Want a child? Better stump up the £1.5-2k nursery fees.

Want to use private schools? Only the very rich can afford £1.5-2k a month, it’s the preserve of the wealthy.

Our pre prep cost is the same as nursery fees to start off with, they gradually increase. We are looking at fees of £30k per year for one child by year 9.

@Didimum ill discuss any topic I like thanks.

You can give the personal comments about me a rest though, they don’t add anything to the discussion.

I think most see it as a necessary evil. Not reasonable but no other choice

Again - agitating for government funded childcare should come off the back of this. Riding on the tide that the populace are keen for the state to fund everything. Women would benefit significantly

I cannot imagine the amount of innovation, progress the country has missed out on by excluding a significant proportion of the workforce during their peak productive years

Having 2 children in nursery for 4.5yrs is WAY outside the bell curve. I should know – I had twins in from 9 months to 4.5yrs too. Having only one child in secondary for 5 years is also way outside the bell curve – especially when you factor in tax free and funded hours.

It’s simply not the same, no matter how many people try to swing it.

Then why are other posters commenting in favour of my posts? Seems like it adds something to me.

Naive and ignorant is not a personal comment. It’s a comment on the ill-formed opinion.

It may work differently in your area but where I live private school fees increase yearly dependent on the age of the child e.g. 4.5 k a term for a child in reception, 6k for a child in year 3. Added to this, that is term time only which is shorter than a state school term so you need to fund additional child care on top.

At nursery the fees decreased as the child got older due to staffing ratios, no nappies etc. It covered 51 weeks of the year from 8 - 6 so no wraparound care required.

The two are not comparable.

Here, it starts at £11k for primary

@LimeandCourgette here you are looking at ~£22k a year for nursery and about £15-18k for private primary school.

So the nursery is quite a lot more, not even equivalent in terms of financial outlay for the parents.

A lot of people only have one child for this reason.

I think that is rather the point - it is an expense that people can stretch to when they need to, but is really uncomfortable for most. if you felt like you really needed to, a great deal more could figure out private education fees for at least one child. I have a child with Sen who really needs a smaller, less overwhelming environment, so we are figuring it out as we go to fund that type of education because the alternative is really ugly.

I could have found a free nursery that would take my kids from 9 months to school age, I would have used that.

Private school is a choice. Nursery, for a few years, is a necessity if you want to keep your career. There were really only 2 years where we were hit by a double whammy of nursery fees. And tbh, we obit paid 3 days a week thanks to gp care. One set of our wages basically went on childcare for a couple of years, but it's paid off long term- my wages rose; dh was made redundant for a spell and now earns less. If I'd given up work once upon a time, we'd have been screwed.

Let's try that again

Many people have a single child - 44% in the last UK Census.

Many have kids 3 years apart - that is actually normal. 2years and 4 months is the average gap in the UK.

If you have 3 years between your kids, first child starts private in Year 7 and you pay private fees for 1 child for Year 7,8,9. In Year 10 and 11, you will pay for that child and the second child for Year 7 and 8. First child goes to state Alevels. Second child completes secondary and follows to state Alevels

So that is 7 years of paying fees of which 2 sets are paid for only 2 years and all within current census figures of child spacing. Not in the extremes of the curve at all.

I have 18 months between my kids so was in the thick of nursery fees for an extended period and don't qualify or want any help. But I can see and empathise with those that may have wanted access to what I had (freedom to stage my kids closer) and not have to sell a kidney to make it work

Well it's really rather dependent isn't. I chose a run of the mill nearby private school as an example. Another private school equidistant is 13k a term for day fees. That doesn't even include the cost of music lessons, which are an additional sum on top.
The nursery fees in this area are all pretty much the same price as each other and include all costs.

The only people I knew who sent their kids to full time nursery from age 1 to 4(or younger) were people with high powered and therefore well paid jobs.

Everyone else made a choice for one parent to go part time or stop work, used grandparent or family childcare and used their free hours once the kids were old enough. I went back part time after maternity leave, dh did condensed hours so he could do one day of childcare, my mum did one day and we paid a childminder for one day. Then they started preschool at 3 with just mornings (only the free hours).

Anyone on a low wage can tell you there's no point working if all your wages go on childcare. So only the relatively well off pay for full time nursery. And of them many will struggle through those years by making sacrifices of holidays, home improvements etc until they reach the relief of free school places. Only the very well off can afford to continue this level of spending over the course of seven years of primary school and five to seven years of secondary school in addition to 1 to 4 years of nursery. Especially if you have more than one child.

Neither my DD nor any of her friends have their children in nursery full time. As others have said, grandparents step in for a day or two, or (like me) help with the cost of a day or so a week. I can make the commitment to helping financially for a 2-3 years, but at 68, I can't make a commitment of another 12 years to help with private schooling, as who knows what my life will hold for me from 70 to 80.

Little ones mostly start at a year old, then before too long the free hours cut in. And the parents tighten their belts till they pinch for those few years knowing that the replacement for their ancient car, or buying the house that's the right size for their two kid family instead of the tiny two bed terraced, is just around the corner when the children start (state) school.

So basically the answer is that nursery is very temporary and at a point where the children aren't expensive to run. Private schooling is an extra 12 or 13 years of financial commitment, with lots of added extras on top of the fees, and at a time when kids cost a small fortune..

Honestly?
I don’t understand your post.

I don’t see how you can compare the two anyway. I mean ratios alone mean that of course nurseries are expensive. 1:3 for babies, 1:5 for 2-3 years and 1:8 for over age 3. In a classroom he ratio is much much higher!

Absolutely correct.

Those people who struggle on and pay full time nursery fees usually do so because they are careers that have prospects and dropping out or down at those early stages may significantly affect longterm prospects.

Others with similar means may choose to make a similar choice for private education.

The point of the OP is you don't have to be very rich to do so. The point is people can understand that a young professional couple in jobs with prospects (but not quite rich yet), can struggle to stump up fees for nursery over a 5 year period. A couple making similar can reasonably do the same for private school and not be very wealthy as the cost can be just a little more or depending on your area in the country, less

Sorry to repeat - only the very wealthy use private throughout. Most people on the cusp fund a stage of education

And full time nursery use is very common in certain careers, particularly if family are not around or live far

In cities like London, with up to 60% not British born in some boroughs, you can imagine that grandparents are not here and these days, many move cities to find their fortune - far away from parental help.

Like everything else, it depends on your social circle. None of my closer friends or NCT group sent their children to nursery full time.. I can't actually even think of a single person who sent their children to nursery full time. People either cut or compressed hours, worked around eachother (shift work), regularly exchanged childcare with another family or in one case WFH with a child plonked in front of an iPad at home all day.

So of course I'm my view no one sees FT nursery fees as a reasonable or affordable expense. And with private schools there just isn't the same option of sending your kid in for 2-3 days a week only to keep cost at a manageable level.

Agreed - circle dependant and driven by type of career and support system.

But the point is few would think someone paying full time nursery fees qualifies them as very rich. It would be understood that the average well earning young couple could afford it with some financial structuring and possibly family planning if necessary.

The point of the post is some do the same financial gymnastics to afford private school and are not necessarily rich

To be honest - I think it is obvious to most that this happens. The aversion to it is why do so when you have a free alternative?
And the difference in quality/experience between the private and state is why people would do so

Okay. Let's say that the parents just go for private at secondary. That's seven years, and for most of that time theyll be paying for both kids (most of the posts have taken a standard two kids family as the base).

So while virtually no-one pays fully for two children at any one point in nursery (at the point that both might be there, the free hours have kicked in for the older one), finding the money for two at private school (plus the expensive uniforn, the activities and the trips and other extras) will be for some significant time.

It really really isn't the same.

Some do 5 years of secondary I.e. to GCSE.
44% in the UK have a single child based on 2021 Census.

With 2 kids spaced 3 years apart (commonly done, and in the UK the average spacing between children is 2 years and 4 months), 2 sets of fees are only paid for 2 years.

Those on the margins (earning 100k or thereabouts) don't qualify for free hours, child benefit etc - so that isn't a help for them whatever system they use. Infact when people in this bracket ask for help to still claim these benefits, they are often labelled tax dodgers on here! The irony!

One is a necessity and the other is a luxury

44% in the UK have a single child based on 2021 Census.

And some of those will end up with two or more.