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?

Sunny

Around the same time as the report you linked a teacher was suspended pending inquiry.
The inspectors reports for 2014 noted the improvements made from the previous years inspection where they were given a matter of months? to comply with the safeguarding issues raised.
In context, one of the issues was a file left out on a desk. It shouldn't have happened but not necessarily the that people may believe the report referred to.
We have friends whose dc attend and dd has made friends there/ new some already and everybody says they are happy and have no problems.
Like I say though, certainly not minimising the past at all.

"certainly not minimising the past at all."

OK if you are sure about that. That article I linked you too was one of very very many. It would almost seem as though the school was the scene of some kind of abuse ring.
It often seems to be these 'posh' boarding schools that kindly accept children from all backgrounds that this kind of thing happens.

Sunny

It was terrible and not confined to the northern music schools, it was pretty widespread, it seemed like the teachers or even worse those in charge such as the director of music could do what they wanted.
I have read the reports, only the newspaper ones though and was quite shocked.
I do think we have come along way since those days though, not just at this school but throughout many organisations and institutions.
There is far more accountability, and transparency.

yes indeed we have morethan.
I do not think our children would put up with it for a start, not these days.

Most child abuse is at home actually - it's your husand, your boyfriend, your lover, a sibling sadly who does most of it - not your local scout master, Asian gang, public school teacher, MP or vicar. That does not mean we should not be vigilant but the riskiest place for many children is sadly in their own home.

I found it sickening reading to be honest and thought about my dd in that position and what she would do.
Would she undress and play in her underwear as one teacher had his students do?
I think not, but a lot of those poor kids had nobody to turn to and in some cases the abuser was also their guardian as their parents were the other side of the world.
I agree with Jilly though, certainly not wise to become complacent.
Both dd and her friend starting in 6th form have been told about the past abuse at the school and both know what to do if they ever feel unsafe.
There are so many people to turn to now and the school is just like any other and should be too.
I can't believe for e.g that students used to visit their teachers homes, rooms if they were onsite.
All the rooms now have windows, even those not on the outside walls.
It has to be like this, such a shame that such a beautiful place has such a past.

"I do not think our children would put up with it for a start, not these days."
Sunny I am sorry but I think you are v wrong.
the issue now is that the arseholes are now better at grooming kids so they are buying into the idea. In the past it was clearly abuse intimidation was used to keep the kids quiet ( 3 teachers from my old boarding school are currently in prison for child sex offenses) I do believe this is now less likely but the grooming side is awful and when a child is living for extended periods of time away from family and with the offender they are more at risk.

FWIW I do think alot of child protection stuff has improved immensely. In the 80's when I was boarding if you talked to a member of staff about things not being right it was clear that the child was lying and the teacher would always be believed. Although things are much harder for teachers now, I do think that the switch round is better for the children.

I am rambling. sorry

The going to a teacher's room for a private music lesson is on the whole okay. My children's father teaches music. There is no way to teach without being alone with the child. Obviously if a parent wants to pay for a webcam or to sit in or pay someone to sit in that might be possible. He both goes to their homes and they come to his.

The other issue is you often have to touch the child - move the hand which is on the piano. It is a bit different from giving some maths coaching.

I certainly favour day schools but not because of worries over abuse - just because I like my children around and want to have more influence on them than might be the case if they boarded and most of the good London day schools get better results than most boarding schools and are half the price.

I agree with the fact that grooming is now the new threat, but I would go a step further and say that it doesn't have to be in a boarding environment; thanks to social media many abusers have access to children 24/7. Look at the case of the young girl who ran away with the teacher, or the Rotherham cases, or more similar ones in the news.

Not all of them were in care homes, many were in loving homes but the parents were powerless in some of those situation. I know someone (not in Rotherham and not a media case either), who ended up sending their teenage child to their country of origin for an extended period of time in order to get them away from the grooming of an adult. Nobody is immune to this, the only thing you can do is be very vigilant.

I think we need a new thread about grooming and abuse. This thread is about fees.

Jilly

I meant their personal room, or house.
Not a room in the school. Private lessons away from the school, why would they need to do this?

i know people teach at home my dh does, he has a music room at home.

I'm sorry for my help in derailment of fees btw, Rivercam I responded to a post up thread.

Pleas continue with the topic of fees

Yes, fees are more interesting relevant.

On the fees I think we'd concluded that some people could afford them when they don't think so if they cut back but that it's their choice if they do and most people (average UK pay is £20k) cannot.

The Sunday Times had a feature on state schools taking £15k a year from Chinese pupils to go to a UK state school in somewhere like Somerset I think it was. Interesting issue.

This thread has gone bizarre. It says there is one page, and 413 messages. Has anyone else noticed this?

Sorry, now it's jumped back to 17 pages!

Yes Rivercam - weird page numbering, I am presently on page one with 415 messages.

We pay for two private secondary, is it worth it - no b**dy idea. Did it for DS1 because he was unhappy at state and suffered from low level bullying. It toughened him up but the school he is at, very creative, has allowed him to thrive. So actually worth every penny of the £15k+

Knowing many medics I thought I'd through this in the mix (from the NHS website).

Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £75,249 and £101,451

Salaried GPs who are part of a CCG earn between £54,863 to £82,789 dependent on, among other factors, length of service and experience.

I know plenty of doctor partners with children in London who were lucky enough to have bought a house (not cheap but not at today's stupid prices) that can pay off their mortgage and send a couple of kids to prep schools/private schools.

They manage a bit of private income to pay for the holidays.

Certainly not oligarchs and mostly from humble backgrounds. Clearly very fortunate compared to many people in London, but people that are very in touch with wider society by virtue of their jobs.

There will also be those that are hospital doctors that are not consultants they will be earning less. There maybe those that are against doing private work.

Age can be an important factor in finanaces (property prices and income).

finances

And unfortunately a heap of dare I say it lazy mostly female doctors who work very short and part time hours (massive problem for the NHS) whose pay is lower because they are not prepared to work full time hours.

Whilst age is an important factor in finances due to property prices, most people with senior aged children (which is the stage where school fees get more expensive) are likely to be old enough to have bought property before prices got crazy in the mid 00's. Some might not have bought until much later in life but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have done so if they wanted to.

Jilly

"dare I say it lazy mostly female doctors"

That's a sweeping insult to doctors and women. One which I hope you realise is incredibly offensive to virtually all of them.

The ability to work shifts and part time is critical to flexibility in the whole of the front line NHS system. If everyone "had" to work full-time you'd have a totally understaffed healthcare system. If only such flexibility was available in the upper ranks of corporates - there would be much greater equality between the sexes if it was. It's ill thought through opinions about part time work, amongst other things, that stop progress. Very unimpressed.

Most hospital doctors will be in their training during their 20s. They start to get permanent consultant jobs from late 20s to 30s - which co-incides with child bearing ages (on average). So by the time their children might need to go to school, and in particular say a private secondary school, they have been a consultant for a while - i.e. paid off a chunk of debts and look forward to continued earnings and (at the moment) a decent pension.

I'm sure there will be a few younger doctors in training with children, but they will be in the minority.

PS - there were 42,000 consultants in the UK and a full time equivalent of 40,000. That means about 5% "part time" work going on to dilute the number down. Not much part time going on in the NHS anyway.

www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16973/nhs-staf-2004-2014-over-rep.pdf

JillyR2015 - the person who doesn't understand the difference between being lazy and having different priorities. Lucky she didn't become a doctor like her father, given her lack of empathy. And of course, she had a nanny to help her with childcare - she was obviously FAR too lazy to work full time AND deal with all the childcare.

Or perhaps laziness has nothing to do with it?... Just a thought.