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?

MGS is good on bursaries but only for those with household income up to £44k (or more if you have more than one boy at the school). That still doesn't help families on 2 average salaries (but is adequate IMO).
Yes the fees are much lower than London schools but so are the teachers salaries as there is no need to pay a London weighting allowance. If MGS had to pay the same salaries as London schools pay their staff I don't think they could keep their fees at £11k pa.
More questionable is those schools not affected by London salaries who still have fees similar to schools in London.

granola I just had a look at SPS website. Its assistance with fees policy doesn't look too good. The examples of people receiving assistance with fees makes me think that they don't really want those people there as the assistance levels don't seem sufficient (although they only give parents employment role and not their salaries so I could be wrong).

JillyR2015 - you may be right about school fees and a mother going back to work, you might not - it is of no interest to me, as I'm not the one bemoaning the cost of school fees. However, your analysis does seem bizarrely simplistic. You don't seem to factor in the cost of going back to work - transport costs, etc, plus the cost of childcare outside of school hours and in school holidays, plus possibly the cost of paying for someone to pick up the slack when it comes to cleaning, gardening, DIY, etc, that being more time poor makes it difficult for you always to do yourself.

Ds school charges around 14,000-18,000/year but has bursaries that have been offered to those on a lot higher than 44,000/year (eg to those on upto double this with 1 child). They go into great detail when offering such bursaries (these also do get offered to those on professional wages).

44,000/year does not seem a high cut off

"The properly posh people send their kids to boarding preps rather than day ones"

This is not the current market trend. Talk to Gabbitas or similar if you want confirmation

The economics of family life are always a lot harder to work out when there are two workers required to meet the family budget (at whatever level it has been set).

I was thinking about this thread again last night.

Is the reason why private schools have upped their standards on facilities, therefore fees since 1997 to do with the big investment in state education that's happened since then? The facilities at these new build state schools is much better than at my private school in the early 90s. Has this had a knock in effect on what more the privates have to offer to tempt parents away from good state schools?

So really we have proved that when women work full time as long as they earn about £20k a year plus they and their husband can probably at a pinch afford day school fees for 1 -2 children if they could also afford to live if the mother did not work at all. Thus to some extent not sending children to a private school and choosing to burden the tax payer is an immoral choice which burdens those of us who work and pay taxes and I count Cameron, Gove and Blair amongst these immoral leeches who could afford to pay but instead burden the state by taking food from the mouths of the poor by clogging up state school places when they could afford to pay.

Bonsoir is right re international schools catering to a lifestyle choice. DD1 is currently at an international school in UK, and it "feels" very similar to her international school in Paris - very American, very "community" based - lots of coffee mornings and things for non-working expat wives to become involved with - bake sales, book sales, various charity things. I guess it caters to the expat market, and enables families to move seamlessly around the world, knowing that it is all going to be familiar and non-scary from one place to the next.

And re prep schools, the trend is very much away from full boarding. DD2's school now offers only weekly boarding until sixth form.

Jilly - perhaps people choose to spend their money on other things, apart from education?

Tut, tut, MrsSchadenfreude, at even suggesting such an immoral idea

JillyR2015 - no, we haven't proved that when women work full time earning £20K a year they and their husband can afford days school fees for 1-2 children. Thus, to some extent, you are talking rubbish. And as for saying it is immoral not to pay for your children to go to private school... perhaps others might argue that it is immoral to go out of your way to avoid paying tax in order to be able to afford to pay school fees and that a tax system designed solely for poor relief, with minimal provision, would create a pretty lousy country to live in. It's all a matter of opinion, as is whether paying for your children to go to private school is worth it. However, your morality argument does sway in favour of granola's arguments that it is immoral for private schools to keep upping their fees so that hard working, squeezed middle professionals can't afford to pay for them any more and have to slum it in state schools for the poor and needy.

I have found a tendency away from private schools where I am. We all spend money on our houses instead. Lots of people having extensions that cost about 75k-100k and send children to state school. I think that's because in London there are some really good state schools for primary. Then for secondary, people move out of London to a much bigger but cheaper house and use the profit they have made for secondary school fees!

Plus, of course, once these women go back to work, no doubt it would be immoral to use the NHS, so you have to factor in the cost of private healthcare to keep on the right side of morality. In fact, it's pretty immoral to be relying on all those free motorways to help get you to work. And as for expecting the police to be at your beck and call should you need them... tsk... you should pay for your own private security, not go sponging off the poor, beleaguered tax payer. A woman earning £20k a year really ought to be able to keep on the right side of morality.

I agree with Jackieharris that the newer builds state schools have at least as good infrastructure as a lot of the private schools plus many have really good sports facilities as well.
Both private schools and state schools often open their sports centre / swimming pools to the paying general public. Private schools may have more historical attractive buildings and settings but that comes at a cost of upkeep as already pointed out.

So basically for a lot of private schools it comes down to paying for extended days / boarding plus a choice in the type and emphasis of teaching (academic and extracurricular) plus a choice in the type of classmates whether ability or for some parents social.
There is also the potential plus factor where a DC may develop a liking for a subject or activity that would n't necessarily have been imagined by the parents or catered for at the same level in the state system. Private schools often use that possibility for marketing but only time tells whether a DC will profit from it or not.

I think what parents value most does change as the DCs get older. We certainly did n't really care about academics when the DCs were younger but did about proximity, green spaces and the nice teachers we met.

Thanks for drawing me into your argument with Jilly, rabbitstew.

I can see nothing immoral in choosing state over private or vice versa.

What bothers me about the conduct of certain "leading" schools is that they continue to maintain that they provide a choice which is available to the many, not the few, whilst, in reality, they set their fees so high and their bursary threshold so low that they are currently narrowing, not widening, their customer base. Apart from the social consequences (which may or may not have moral connotations), that's dishonest.

That's OK, granola. Do any of the leading schools maintain that they provide a choice available to the many? I guess I just hadn't noticed.

I find when Jilly sticks with her line that we're all different and it's OK to make different choices, and your mental and physical health and wellbeing are more important than paying for school fees at the end of the day, that she is much easier to agree with than when she lets the veneer slip and attempts to argue that it is immoral to use state education, and/or that she's really hard working and everyone else in the world is lazy.

I thought schools often stated that they would like to make their education available/accessible to all regardless of financial situation...but then added the caveates eg that children have to do very well on entrance exams (be a credit to the school etc). Bursaries are frequently, around here, attached to scholarships. Schools are often very quick to point out that the bursary fund is limited. I do think most private schools realise that not everyone can attend.

Yes, rabbitstew, there are "leading" schools which do pretend that academic ability is the only hurdle to admission. Here's St Paul's School, as mentioned upthread: www.stpaulsschool.org.uk/admissions/assistance-with-fees

As The Times said on Tuesday, the most realistic way to "assist with fees" would be to reduce them. As it happens, that is also the view of SPS's former head, Martin Stephen...

The NHS worker could well be a doctor

There is no mention of their cut off for a bursary. I know DSs school has said they would rather give out bursaries to more children but of a lesser amount (their rational is they are helping a greater number-but they also will be getting some fee payment).

yoyo1234 Are you suggesting that, in referring to financial assistance given to "an NHS worker", SPS is too embarrassed to admit that its fees have become so extortionate that it is having to use its precious bursary fund to help doctors?

No, there's no mention of a cut off for a bursary. Family finances can be complicated, particularly with what London property prices have been doing, so many schools have formulae which they apply but which they don't advertise. The upshot is, though, that bursaries will generally go to the "low paid", as SPS's website helpfully confirms. I doubt doctors would be eligible but I'm ready to be proven wrong.

Rather a lot has changed since these school were founded.. Not least that there is now free educational provisional for all, even if they have set foot in the country the day before.
Why whine about a few school that charge fees you think are extortionate? They are massively oversubscribed already, so clearly that there are many people who can afford the fees and choose to pay them.
Usually on MN the prevailing theme is that middle-classes have a moral duty to place their DC in state schools to 'bring up standards'.
Are you saying that the teaching is so poor in state school that the middle-classes deserve better?
No-one is deprived of a school place, and now there is the opportunity to set up a free school if you are unhappy with the provision already offered... Never been a better time or place to be educated than here and now.

yoyo1234 My apologies. I have looked at the SPS website again and I see what you mean about the "NHS worker". To be able to pay for 2DC with only a 10% remission on fees, one parent could well be a doctor. Crazy.

No, DontGotoRoehampton, I'm saying nothing of the kind. Teaching in state schools can be superior to teaching in private schools. Heads of state schools can also be better managers, more committed to their pupils and more farsighted than heads of private schools.

I'm in favour of more choice for more parents and I think it would be helpful to that end if those who can afford to pay big fees would exercise their freedom to go away and found their own "all frills" five star super expensive schools, rather than "leeching onto" fine institutions which used to be more diverse and to behave more decently.