Prep school but can't really afford it

[winkywinkola]

3 of my dcs are at prep school. They're very happy there, doing well etc.

We struggle to send them there. Overdrawn every month. No holidays apart from trips up north to stay with family.

Dh is insistent they go there. They will go state secondary so ds1 has 1.5 years left but then ds3 will start at the prep so our financial situation will not improve until dd leaves to go state in 3 years.

I do wonder about the wisdom of this. The school is smashing. There is no doubt about that. The dcs are doing very well there but there are absolutely no frills in our lives whatsover. It's tough and we are both feeling the pressure.

Dh thinks it's a good investment for now and worth the struggle. I've gone back to work (happily) but on a freelance basis so the money isn't that regular. And we're just about to take in two lodgers which will help too.

But it will a while before we feel any happiness from this increased revenue because we've built up £5k worth of debt over the last two years. Part of which is due to decorating and furnishing to a decent standard the two rooms we're letting out.

When I think of the money we spend each year on fees and the stress, worry and arguments we have about money, I just wonder if it's worth it. The local schools are all 'needing improvement' according to OFSTED and DH just won't consider them and is prepared to live threadbare lives. I think it's ridiculous. This is the one big bone of contention in our lives imo.

We are so the poor family at school! Not that I care but it just highlights to me just how much money one really needs to go private.

Please can anyone furnish me with stronger rationales as to why we should go state?

Didn't you trust us to say all that HG?

Sorry zero such a long thread I only skimmed it!

HG no one else mentioned Christ's Hospital tbf.

And your final paragraph encompassed everything I'd been trying to express over several days and about a thousand relentless, rambling posts.

I agree with Clarinova You should ask the head if they will negotiate on fees now. Many preps, even if they do not offer bursaries, will negotiate on fees in times of financial difficulties. At least you eldest will leave soonish. Could you pay interest only on your mortgage until they are out of the prep?

I understand where your husband was coming from, but I don't think he's thought it through properly or has seen what has happened to state education over the last decade or so.

My parents put me through a top hot-house prep that got scholarships every year to Winchester/Eton/Radley etc. At the time they had no experience with 11+ or girl's school entry (I was one of the first girls in the school).

In the end I went to a 13+ entry grammar. It was not the super-selective with 90% ex-prep pupils that it is today when I went there. I was bored rigid for the first couple of years, by the end of which my work ethic had worn off - I was fortunate to be bright enough to do well while coasting in the extreme. I also found it very hard to be one of very few private school pupils (pretty much everyone came from the grammar stream at the local comprehensive) and was I was teased (bullied) over it.

With our DD, we are doing it the other way round. Initially I was very worried about living in an area of London with very poor private options and very high levels of deprivation. DD is in a state primary with over 70% FSM and 80% EAL and loving it. They have stacks of extra money, her class has a teacher plus a full-time TA for 30 kids.

They sussed a few weeks ago that she is coasting below her ability level, have moved her into the extended learning group (yes they are teaching at different ability levels in Y1) and are now offering an hour twice a week of free after-school 1-2-1 sessions, not because she is struggling, but to get her right up to speed and work on her dodgy 'work ethic'.

85% of their kids got L5 in English and Maths last year, and 20% got L6 Maths - and that is with a very challenging intake and very few MC parents. They got a child into Eton, 2 into super-selective grammars and 5 into super-selective indies last year. That means that 85% of the children at this inner-city primary are working 2 years ahead of their age. The idea that preps are all so far ahead is imo a myth once you get to Y6. They seem to get them all reading and writing as fast as possible - which may not be a great thing developmentally - but it quickly levels out.

I have been blown away by what I am getting for free.

I do know that I am also very lucky to have such a great school, however, at primary level children have a much greater desire to please and are generally excited about what they do at school. It's secondary where the problems can really set in if you don't have good local provision.

Our local secondaries are DIRE - celebrating 36% getting 5 GCSEs is not my idea of a great school. We are saving our money to aim for a selective indie secondary. IMO the benefits at that age far outweigh the benefits of a private primary.

I would encourage you to look at the state options in your area - not just the Ofsted reports, but actually visit them and see what you think.

A lot of people also start off in a state primary and then move to the private sector either at 8 to prep for 11+, or at 11 to prep for CE - or employ a tutor. That way you can save the fees for many years to put towards secondary and still have the preparation that you need for the private secondaries.

I can understand that you would be loathe to move your children who are at the prep already since they are happy - although imo children are very adaptable and they probably wouldn't find it hard to move into the state system at a young age. But, it seems that this particular prep isn't providing anything much in terms of amazing results or extras and appears to have a very 3rd rate Head (plus, why pick a CE school if you are moving them at 11?)

I would definitely at least start the youngest in the state system. People hate the 'State till Eight' thing and I see their point completely, but it is a valid option. You might find that you prefer the state option. Don't worry about the whole 'if I did it for one then I must do it for all' thing - my 3 siblings and I all had completely different mixes of state and private schools and none of us feel hard-done by.

Sorry, have written a novel here, but I feel for you and think you are in a very difficult and torn position trying to do the best for your children. It's worth considering whether an extra 2 years at home with your son will benefit him more in the long-run than a mediocre sounding prep...

Good luck.

I paid for five children.Surely the issue is all about unpredictable freelance female income. Could you not get paid more if you had a different job? Would that be the real solution to having more money? Have either of you considered additional weekend jobs?

Why the focus on the OP's income or the assumption that she is working below her potential Greengrow? What about her DH? Any road up IMO the problem is that they are living beyond their means. They have 2 choices:

• increase their income to the point where they can afford private school

or

• decrease their outgoings by stop trying to pay for private school which they can ill afford

It will be an awful lot easier to reduce this outgoing than to raise the income.

That's it in a nutshell Gnome.

A weekend job so they can afford private school fees? Surely family life is more important?

I seem to remember greengrow once referring to children at a comprehensive school as 'dregs'.

If you feel like that, family life would be the first thing to be sacrificed in the quest for private education.

I don't think I would have said it like that actually. 92% of children are at state schools and they make up 50% of Oxbridge entrants. Of course they aren't "dregs". Plenty of not very bright children are at private schools which take all comers and sometimes the value added is well worth the price.

Hak
That was uncalled for, unless you can prove that somebody said something I really don't think it adds anything to the discussion.

There was a thread about 1 year ago with the word dregs on it. I cannot remember the context. If it were found and quoted here I'd be happy to comment on it. There certainly are in some schools some children with huge problems usually caused by parents with a range of difficult issues who cause problems in school. In fact Cameron has ear marked extra money for 100,000 hard core problem families and they are difficult to handle. They tend not to manage money well probably have addiction issues, absent parents, neglect and cause a disproportionate amount of cost for local authorities.

The issue of how much time you spend with your children is for everyone male and female in a sexually neutral way to determine. At one extreme both parents would not work be home on benefits and home school whilst sleeping with the children all night, skin on skin. At the other extreme you'd send them to boarding school at age 7. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

"Hak
That was uncalled for, unless you can prove that somebody said something I really don't think it adds anything to the discussion."

Really? I think it goes to explain a single minded commitment to private education. A commitment which may well feed others anxieties.

It proves nothing - if they didn't say it!

I went to a mixture of schools, state, private, boarding, comprehensive, schools abroad you name it.

There is one thing I value from my private education, and that's the way I speak. And really, that's it.

My DC go to the local state primary. My eldest will be going to a super selective next year. The advantages I see in private education now just seem to be that parents don't have to do as much at home with their children (esp for 11+ etc) and the sports facilities are better. Having said the latter, it doesn't seem to make any difference to ability in our area.

Seems awfully expensive just for those few things, which you can supplement at home/outside school at significantly less cost.

it's true what greengrow says about problem children, or more accurately problem parents. A continuing, underlying disruption in the class can distract those children that want to work and take up a disproportionate amount of the teacher's time. That makes a lot of difference in a class of 30. My GDD is in a class of 15 well behaved, well motivated dcs with a full time TA. And excellent facilities.

mmm, how common do you think 'continuing underlying disruption' is? From some MN posts - especially those who are very pro private education - you might think that it is a daily occurrence in 90%, if not all, of state schools.

I have been in and out of classrooms in state primaries for over a decade. I hav taught in classes where more than half are on the SEN register, and where a majority of children are on FSM. I have also taught in schools where FSM and SEN children are rare.

I have witnessed classes in which 'continuing underlying disruption' is a problem, twice. In one case, a child with extreme behavioural needs (due to a totally appalling backstory) lost it. For the first time in 3 years of schooling. In the other, the teacher had weak behaviour management and the leadership of the school was in too much of a mess to sort it out. But it certainly isn't 'a daily occurrence' IME.

No disruption in my dd's class. The children are all delightful, and very well behaved.

Did you mean to be so ... insensitive mmm?

I'm really not sure that possession of at least one parent capable of getting you into a fee paying school makes a child morally superior. Or more deserving of a bright future.

Ah the naive parents who think disruptive kids (and non small classes) are non existent in privates schools.

< thinks of friend with DS in a prep school class not much smaller than my dd's enduring younger(it's mixed age to boot) disruptive children

It tends to be teenagers who are most disruptive in state and private schools. I think it is worse in some sets of some state schools but the 92% of parents with children in state schools often find it's fine so there's no problem. Those of us who pay fees are happy and those who don't are too - so that's great. It's all about free choice in a free society and I'm sure that those who home school are happy as well.