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!

Not ‘every parent’. A lot of us have one parent (or both) go part time, have family help etc until the free hours kick in or they go to school.

Indeed but single child families are growing at an exponential rate in the UK. Well established trend and not a fact that is disputed by anyone.

Old 2009 article showing almost a third growing up without siblings, up exponentially from the decade before.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/15/single-child-families

Also, if you have kids - just look at their cohort

But nevermind.....

Family are worth their weight in gold! However, women shouldn't have to go part time unless they want to. Huge contributor to the gender pay gap. But I hear Angela Reeves is going to fix that once and for all...any solution that doesn't address proper reform of childcare is unlikely to work

Yes, it means it is much worse doing for that long. For instance if you do not have a real choice or a place in State schools in your area. Some people are stuck by stamp duty and moving houses again is sometimes very hard in big cities. Where by the way nursery school charges a lot as well.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread. Are you highlighting the plight of those who choose to privately educate?
Those who privately educate might not feel that there is a choice for various reasons, but there is still a choice. It might be less desirable from their perspective but it still exists.

Private school fees are cheaper when they primary to secondary...look at how much it goes up to aged 11 and onwards. No comparison to nursery fees. My dd is state school and was in nursery. We can't afford private school and tbh I don't want her in one in primary as the primary schools are amazing around here.

The fact that 56% of the 605,000 kids in schools affiliated to the ISI have SEN needs,

Where does this stat come from please? What proportion of total kids in independent schools are in schools affiliated to the ISI?

And the difference is more significantly that finding some kind of childcare is mandatory if you're returning to work, mandatory in order to have any children at all.

Nobody has to take into account 17 years of care/education for every single child.

Bring rich or making sacrifices isn't the main thing. It's the fact that one has to be achieved somehow, the other is optional.

Private school is a choice, nursery isn’t if you need to continue working. Parents don’t need to factor in 12 years of private education when considering having children because we have a state school system. We don’t have a state nursery system so they do have to often factor private nursery fees in for 4 years.

This. Your child can start at 3 in a school nursery but 9-3 with no wrap around and school holidays not covered with no holiday clubs available for the same age.

It's not like there's a free option.

Well I hate to tell you this OP.. .

But I do think of nursery as a thing for better off people.

Mine went to a childminder, which is much cheaper.
And I couldn't afford it full time either. Me and DH worked pt and on different days to limit the need for childcare.

This kind of under employment is very very common at lower income levels. It always makes me laugh when I see mumsnetters talk about the "luxury" of being a SAHM.
I've heard a lot of people express relief when their kids reach school age because this finally allows them to work.

Of the people I know who worked full time with pre schoolers, the majority had free childcare from family.
I also know some families where the parents worked opposite shifts (so Mum on days and Dad on nights or vice versa) and they only see each other on Sundays.

I know one person with a child in nursery. She has a professional job and is quite a lot better off than me.

Even so, she's also part time in order to limit nursery expenses. And I doubt she's thinking "Hey, paying out all this money is fun. I think I'll go private and keep it up for a few more years"

There's also an additional factor that whilst private school education might be seen (by some) as the most desirable/advantageous option for children the same is not true for full time nursery from ages 1-4.

Full time nursery fees would have been a lot to pay but I felt that DD would benefit more from being looked after by parents/grand parents. So DH and I reduced our hours and my mum looked after DD two days a week. When she was three we used free hours for nursery a couple of mornings a week to get her ready for school.

We were fortunate to be able to do that, many families don't have a choice but I do think many families see full time nursery (for very young children) as a necessity not their first choice.

Yes I was just responding to the idea that everyone affords nursery so everyone can afford private school.

There is no alternative to nursery, other than throwing my career in the bin.

I worked 4 days a week and DH worked 4. At this age it was probably not worth our while working 5 days a week with 2 in nursery.
And it wasn't just the free hours from 2 - it was the free hours from 3 and the workplace nursery, or we could have chosen vouchers or (for DD) tax free childcare.
There is a LOT more help out there for nursery. It isn't in ANY WAY comparable to private school.

I agree. I’m lucky that I could compress my hours into 4 days. The funded hours are helpful but with top ups only save me £200 ish a month. Will have 2 in shortly. It costs exactly the same as the nearest private school.

You seem to have forgotten that most people have to go to work. They are obliged to send their dc to nursery and pay nursery fees, whether they like it or not. It isn't an optional luxury that they are using instead of the free state provision. Because there is no free state provision.

A private education is optional. People are not forced to send their children to private school. There is a free alternative, available to everyone.

It's not comparible in our case. Ds is 10. We were able to reduce nursery fees to £620 a month by me going part time. At 3 we got free hours so cost reduced to £350 a month. Looked into private school and it's about £1, 400 a month. For 7 years if just secondary or more if primary whereas nursery fees were 2 years full fee then 1.5 years reduced. On top of private school fees are e.g. school trips, uniform, bus fares, extra curricular activities, school dinners all of which are extra to the fees (not the case with nursery)That's why ds went to nursery but hasn't gone and won't go to private school.

And those who choose not to use the free option should have that choice respected. It is not illegal or morally wrong to want a different provision for your children. Same as those that may want forest schools for nursery or montessori or whatever.

And it is separate from how the government fund state schools with our taxes - which is what we need to be up in arms about

Many do not want to go part-time or cannot go part-time in their chosen careers and many do not qualify for 30 free hours. It really varies based on career choice and aspirations as well as family support available

Ok. It’s now 2024.

Most people aren’t getting their nursery fees down to £350 a month. Here with the hours discount (which - not all nurseries are even offering locally), you are looking at probably £1,400pcm.

This is equivalent to school fees of £16,800 a year, which I think is about average for a secondary school.

This is just considered a normal expense, yet is identical to fees for a private school which are only affordable by the rich people.

This post is not in support of private school parents, it’s pointing out the absurdity of these two conflicting positions both of which are argued on mumsnet (including numerous times on this thread).

If I pay £1,400 in nursery fees that’s something deemed possible to afford by cutting back.

If I pay £1,400 in school fees I’m incredibly wealthy.

Just odd and contradictory.

Yes the reduction for 15 free hours is about £50 a week round here too.

Which is not equivalent to 15 free hours - more like half a day.

How much will you be spending with two in?

Children go to school at 4. That's over 3 years of Nursery fees for us, I wouldn't really call it short term.

It’s considerably shorter than school years

Plus for part of that there’s at some help for most people in terms of free hours, tax free childcare or tax credits/UC, which there is t for school years

Does it not worry you that this will be a complete waste of money! No hate, I'm just generally curious. What if they aren't academically focused and decide to choose a career at the end of it which is practical based and they didn't need the private education to do it? Put the money in savings for them? I'm not having a go, I just find it interesting that people do this.