Level of family income required for private school fees?

[TheABC]

Had an interesting discussion with DH over tea tonight, after reading in the independent supplement that the average cost of fees per term for a day boarder is 4k. We are approaching that in nursery fees for DS and it's a struggle. I can't imagine trying to juggle that sort of cost for two children over 7 or more years. However, clearly a lot of people are, as 6% of all UK pupils are privately educated and I doubt we have that many millionaires.

DH thinks the income ceiling is around the 80k mark, I think it could easily be lower, depending on family circumstances (e.g mortgage commitments). Who is right?

I think you're right Chunderella about the Trafford factor (it was me who mentioned Manchester schools BTW so we probably live in the same region). My DS sat Altrincham Grammar and passed with a decent out of catchment score and was offered a place. We still chose an independent school though! partly due to logistics and what we felt was the right fit for DS. I know a few people from Out of catchment whose children passed for Altrincham and they didn't take up the offers, but likewise I know a couple of people who do send their sons to Altrincham from out of catchment and more who send their children to St Ambrose or Loreto. Due to the way admissions criteria is applied if you are catholic or have a much brighter than average boy you have a good chance of getting a place at a Trafford Grammar without even needing to move into the catchment (not the same for Alty Girls school. Of course living close by helps the child due to commuting times etc.
I suppose the clamour for places at Trafford Grammar schools just goes to show that for many parents it isn't about the frills, it's about the standards of education. Class sizes at Alty are bigger than my local comp and the facilities are much the same but the parents I know who send their children there are very happy with it as the exam results are excellent year on year. A lot of the parents I know are far wealthier than I am and could easily afford to send their children to one of the independents if they wanted the frills, but it isn't what they are looking for. Maybe some schools have a misconception about what the majority of parents really want from a school.

Don't know why there was an exclamation mark in my post, it wasn't intended

I think granolamuncher should list the schools which are upsetting her with their expensive frills and inform us how she would have kept all those spoilt rich people out, who wanted to ruin everything with their money and demands.

I find it quite funny that we are regularly told on Mumsnet that one of the big advantages of private schools is that you are a customer and they have to listen to you, because otherwise you can throw your weight around and withdraw your custom and your cash... yet apparently, they shouldn't have to listen to all their customers, only the ones who don't want the fees to go up, but unfortunately they aren't listening to those customers... which means that one of the advertised advantages of private schools doesn't actually exist! Amazing. Private schools only listen to the people with the most money. Who knew?

"and inform us how she would have kept all those spoilt rich people out, who wanted to ruin everything with their money and demands."

This is what, quite reasonably, we might expect the Charity Commission to keep an eagle eye on.

Anyone else fuming that Bristol uni rigged their raffles so the same person won everything?

I'm OUTRAGED.

Well, I suspect the Charity Commission already knew it was on a losing streak, as private schools are supposed to be doing what state schools are supposed to be doing... except for all those educational "frills," none of which can be described as devoid of all educational purpose - they are just very expensive. Private schools do expect you to pay for the education they offer, which isn't hugely charitable, really, is it? So, beyond expecting SOME children to get help with the fees, the Charity Commission can't in all honesty do much else, can it??? Charitable status is a ridiculous anachronism in this age of universal education.

I don't think there is a conflict of interest between charitable purpose and charging fees, providing the fees are for purposes that meet the reasonable objectives of the charitable outfit.

When does educational infrastructure become too luxurious or superfluous to qualify? At what point do co-curricular activities exceed or supersede mainstream educational ones?

Well exactly - at what point? It's pretty hard to tell, once you've accepted it's OK to pay for it.

Its a lifestyle not just the tuition fees If you just scrape the fees you won't geT the full experience as the extras are what make it and they are £££

Maybe at the point the fee payers no longer wish to pay for it, as they are the main charitable donors?... a point which does not quite appear to have been reached, yet. Plenty wish to pay for it, even if plenty are also annoyed they can't afford it. I don't think those who can no longer afford it are charity cases, though.

For profit schools that are clearly a business whose activity is education and whose purpose is return on investment can charge as much as the market likes. There is no issue.

But schools with massive endowments and/or legacy objectives and charitable purpose do not have those freedoms.

I'm not going to set out a list of schools which are failing the professional middle class. It would be long, boring and inaccurate.

You could look at the recent Sunday Times list of schools which imposed inflation busting fee rises in the last five years. There's a strong correlation.

I have contributed comments on this theme to threads on KCS Wimbledon, Alleyns, and SPGS, which confirms my metropolitan bias but all of those London day schools are certainly culprits.

It's true that the CC might not be too interested but now that the salaries of its own in-house lawyers will be inadequate to cover indie fees for their own DC, we could, as I say, have reached a tipping point, as also illustrated by the importance with which The Times chose to treat the issue last week.

Picking up noddy's and Bonsoir's points, it's unlikely any schools were founded in order to cater to a lifestyle choice.

It might be unlikely as a founding but it's the realty that having the fees is not enough

Very few good English fee paying schools are profit making and most (but not all) have very little money - about 70% + of fees goes each year on teacher salaries and they have few endowments except a few richer schools.
As for charitable status they need under the relatively recently reformed charity law to provide some help to those less well off eg bursaries but they are allowed to cater for the rich just as opera houses can be charities as long as again they do a bit of good for the poor. Education and indeed classical music per se is charitable traditionally even if you help richer people and separately in any event educating 500,000 Uk children is a massive relief for the UK state which saves millions every year. By paying fees we do the state a huge service and arguably should get tax relief at top rate on the fees we pay.

The fee rises do not correspond to profits, though, do they - they correspond to greater spending on education... And so what if the Charity Commission lawyers can't afford school fees? That's got nothing whatsoever to do with the law. Just admit to the fact that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with charity law or the moral or educational purpose of private schools - you just want to put political pressure on private schools because you are a member of the squeezed professional middle classes and you don't like the status quo. That's fair enough - but to pretend there is some kind of awful immorality in expensive private schools which is totally non-existent in slightly less expensive ones is ridiculous. They all exclude the majority of people.

JillyR2015 - I don't think the state should feel obliged to give tax relief to people for not being willing to pay enough tax to enable all children to be educated to a reasonable level by the state. It's the status quo, not something to be proud of.

Chunderella, you point about buying into the location instead of the school got me thinking about this article from the telegraph.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/house-prices/11482241/Mapped-Where-Englands-best-schools-are-pushing-up-house-prices.html

What I found interesting was that (in my neck of the woods, at least), private schools exist alongside "good" or "outstanding" schools, so as you indicate, parents really do have a choice about fees versus catchment-buying.

If you want a bursary to be able to send DCs then make a good case for it and ask with any forms etc that need completing.
Charity Commissions check private schools every few years for contributions to society (I would assume this is reasonably detailed and looks at not just bursaries, but loans to the community of facilities etc.).

rabbitstew

The fee rises of 30% or more in the last five years have largely gone, not on education as ordinarily understood, but on luxuries like new facilities and ever smaller class sizes.

Nobody's accusing the schools of making profits or of somehow breaking charity law but nor should anybody imagine that the schools have been obliged to incur these extra costs and to put their fees up. These are choices they have made. We are entitled to query those choices, whether on social, business or indeed moral grounds. I have no hesitation in doing so on all three.

I do think that schools which have managed to keep fee rises low during these last few years are generally better run and better led than those which have not.

When KCS Wimbledon was awarded "Independent School of the Year" by the Sunday Times last year, its head made some much publicised remarks about how he had become worried that schools like his were pricing themselves out of the reach of local middle class families. Other heads had been aware of the trends well before this and had taken judicious business decisions to increase pupil numbers, extend bursaries, and keep fee rises low, thereby widening access and diversity in their schools.

Yes, all schools exclude people, including state schools. They can have different reasons or excuses for doing so.

If a school pretends that it is maintaining its traditions and that it is open to all, regardless of background, when the facts show that it is currently pandering to the super rich and that economic diversity within its walls is actually being narrowed, that is dishonest. It's not a crime and it's not some sort of awful immorality but it's worth pointing out.

As regards the Charity Commission, the goalposts keep changing on what independent schools need to do to retain charitable status. Tristram Hunt announced some new ideas about what Labour would do six months or so ago. I just think these very expensive schools need to watch out because they will have fewer friends in Parliament as MPs are limited to £67k pa and fewer in the civil service too. They may find that the law changes and is enforced in ways they won't like. The Times hinted at this in its leader on Tuesday.

Some private schools are utterly dismal places with shit facilities, though, and the only "benefit" they seem to offer is keeping your little dears away from the hoi polloi. And when I say shit facilities, I mean quite basic stuff like IT equipment and good art supplies, things which come as pretty standard in state schools. DH used to be a school governor at the local village school, and one of the other governors used to teach at a local private school. She said the facilities there were shockingly bad in comparison to what we got at the village school.

Re the all frills schools with Olympic sized swimming pool, six tennis courts, golf courses, amazing sports facilities, theatre, specially built MUN room, language labs etc etc, I think you need to ask yourself how much your child is going to use them, as going to a school like this is not going to turn a non-sporty child into a sports whizz/linguist/whatever overnight. If you have a child who spends all of his spare time in bed playing computer games, he's not likely to change overnight just because of the school.

Havent read the whole thread .Neither DH nor I were privately educated (which may have influenced us) but it never occured to us to send our DDs to independent schools . Though our local state schools are excellent and Dd1went to a selective state grammar. (One went to and achieved a First from a world class Uni. , the other ditto from a RG Uni) I am amazed what people will do without for the sake of private education . I can understand it if the local schools are truly dreadful,(but I think I'd rather put the money into moving to a house in the catchment of a decent school) but I think mine would say they preferred the holidays, days out decent clothes etc .they enjoyed .
On a combined pre-tax income of about £95,000 we did pay all costs for both daughters at uni . without much of a sacrifice(about £12,000 pa ) But we had paid off our mortgage which I think is the crucial aspect.

The point you makeChunderella is exactly so where we live

granolamuncher - I think some schools are very much founded to cater to a lifestyle choice (some international schools come to mind).

I'm interested to know who the 'super rich' are in the context of this thread.

We went to dinner last night and everyone there had DC in private school yet there was not an oligarch or footballer amongst us. Not a banker!