Pounds per pupil, cash for children

[toutlemonde]

If your kid goes to a private school, I know you're shelling out lots of your hard earned cash and I know they will be mixing with a particular subset of the population but... what is the actual amount of money which the school are investing per child in their education and how much does it actually differ from state school funding?

I can see the inclination would be to assume it is a whole lot more in independent schools, but that's partly because you're so aware of every pound you're putting in, less so than when it goes the roundabout route via the treasury...

Or I could be completely wrong and the schools could be spending an obscene amount directly on the children and not paying themselves silly salaries...

I just like to see things in numbers, I have no other agenda in asking the question!

I don't understand the question.
Suppose a school has an annual intake of 60 pupils. It could either employ two teachers so there are 30 pupils per class. Or it could employ three teachers so there are only 20 pupils per class and they each get more individualised attention. And these teachers could be paid a bit above the standard rate, to attract better quality staff.

Does the second scenario count as 'investing per child' or 'paying themselves silly salaries'? Or both?

Oops, wasn't trying to be offensive.

By silly salaries I meant, are headteachers getting paid over the odds (I don't know either way if that is the case).

Yes of course more teachers to pupil ratio counts as investing, I was just wondering overall, including staff and books, equipment and all the other things which cost money and contribute to their education... is it actually of a totally different order than that invested by the state sector?

bump?

Sorry. Started posting on this yesterday but it got so complicated that I gave up hoping that someone else would jump in. In a nutshell:

You can't generalise. Some private schools spend more than State schools. For all I know, there may be some who spend less. There will be some who spend 'a totally different order' for example the public schools.

Some private schools operate for profit so, in theory, they could charge high fees but not spend it for the children's benefit and pocket the difference. They wouldn't last long on that business model, though.
Some schools are not-for-profit so all money is ploughed back in.

You could argue that parents on full fees are, in a way, not getting their fair share because a portion of their fees goes to subsidise scholarships and bursaries.

I don't think that there are many schools where the Head is in total charge and sets his/her own salary. Most Heads have a Governing body looking over their shoulder.

What is your definition of a 'silly salary' in a private school? Do you realise that Headteachers at State schools can earn in excess of £100,000.

Phew. Is that enough to be going on with?

My children have all started their education in state and subsequently moved to independent schools. I don't have any figures but it is very apparent that the facilities, class sizes, equipment etc are superior in their independent schools. The schools have charitable status and are run by governors so not really about making a huge profit. One of the huge incentives to teach in them is the discounted fees available to teachers rather than salaries massively above standard pay scales. Of course head teachers command a high salary - as they can in the state sector. However I'm also aware of a local non selective independent school which is run as a business rather than having charitable status. That school always gives the impression of being run on a shoe string, bills parents for every conceivable extra and presumably makes its investors a profit. Thus I don't think there is really a single answer to your question.

Sod's law!! Just when I stop waiting for someone else to jump in ...

I was talking to the head of my local state school and telling him that the fees for a local independant school are nearly £5,000 per term. He looked a bit rueful and told me that he gets £5,000 per year to educate each of the pupils in his school.

toutlemonde What an interesting education economics question.

Here are some numbers I've come across.

The average state spend per child is about £6,500 per annum. I've seen figures for average [day rate] private fees ranging from £8,000 - £10,000 per annum. Although, actual spend and fee rates vary greatly depending on location & age group.

I don't think there is much difference in salaries across private and state teachers. Although private schools have more flexibility to pay certain teachers a premium (e.g. science & language specialist teachers).

Most private schools are charities - so they re-invest any surplus revenue. Some also have other funds (endowments) but these are often used to fund scholarships and bursaries. Bursaries and scholarships are also funded from fee income.

Another interesting education economics question is: why are parents prepared to pay thousands of pounds a year for a service which the state provides 'for free'?

So, why do parents pay, say £10k pa, when there is a £6k pa, school place being offered for free.

It's a bit like if you won a £6k holiday but refused it, and instead bought a £10k holiday. Can that £4k diffence in quality be worth the £10k you are paying?

Nice analogy jackstarb - unfortunately, sometimes the holiday you win is to Pontins Camber Sands!

corlan.

And to be fair - my analogy is a massive over-simplification.

Also - I should point out that the £6.5k was average education spend by the state (in about 2008). The average received by schools would be lower.

Some interesting numbers on this were published in Jan by the Guardian.

m.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/12/school-expenditure-varies-widely?cat=education&type=article

".....the average secondary school spent more than £5,200 per pupil last year, while the average primary paid out £4,284."

The article is fascinating, in that it highlights the differences in spending - Hackney for example spends an average of over £8k per pupil, twice the national average.

The article includes a disclaimer that "spend per head" isn't terribly illustrative of anything. That is probably true in the private sector too.

Really interesting posts, thanks all! Sorry I took a while to come back to this thread... Those were just the sort of figures I was interested in jackstarb, corlan and scaevola. Interesting article also.

Because the independent school fees do go (I think) towards bursaries and scholarships, some level of tax (even as charities) and I'm sure other non-pupil related expenditure, it sounds to me like the 'spend per pupil' isn't really so different, which is pretty enlightening.

I think the reasons parents are prepared to pay jackstarb, are very different than the simple economic one of wanting the investment in their children's education - the emphasis / expectations / curricula in independents, who the children will mix with, for just a couple of examples...