Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Level of family income required for private school fees?

471 replies

TheABC · 14/03/2015 19:48

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?

OP posts:
ChocolateWombat · 18/03/2015 18:45

I asked my brother about this, because I knew his family income wasn't that high and he still has a DS a at private school.
My brother has a DC at private school. He pays £12k a year (Prep) and has a family income of £65k.

I asked him how he does it. He says it is because they are mortgage free. Paid it off about 5 years ago. He said him and his wife earn, so both have a tax free allowance and take home about £3800 between them. They use £1k a month for school fees and live on about £2300 a month, leaving about £500 a month for holidays, treats, extras at school etc. when I asked him, he knew all this info immediately and said it is all very carefully worked out.
He said they could not do it if they had 2 kids or a mortgage.

I'm not sure what will happen when the child is at secondary school as fees will be higher then. My sister in law does not work full time, so I suppose there is scope to increase their income.

My brother is just under 40 and bought his first house around the year 2000. I guess he has benefitted from rising house prices and low interest rates. I also think he has been quite savvy with money.

ChocolateWombat · 18/03/2015 18:49

One question I have, is if you are mortgage free, how much does it cost to live per month? My brother says he is doing it for £2300. Does that sound cheap? He lives in a fairly standard 3 bedroom house and lives a comfortable if not lavish life. He said he has £500 spare a month for 'extras'. They seem to have 2 or 3 UK based holidays a year, 2 cars (not new by any means) and have days out and the child does activities such as music and sports lessons.

granolamuncher · 18/03/2015 19:07

Thanks Bonsoir. The head of KCS Wimbledon was heard on a BBC documentary last year to say that Tatler magazine's schools guide was "important". It's got as bad as that.

cauchy · 18/03/2015 20:03

One question I have, is if you are mortgage free, how much does it cost to live per month?

Isn't this very subjective? Our family is mortgage free. We spend about 25% of our income on DC's school fees, 33% of our income on living and try to save most of the rest. I would think many families in our position might have fancier cars and holidays or buy a more expensive house rather than saving so much.

It also depends very much on where you live, of course. £2300 per month is very different in London than in rural/remote areas where the cost of living is low.

ChocolateWombat · 18/03/2015 20:58

Yes, it is certainly subjective and people make different choices. However the thread title asked how much income is 'required' to pay school fees. I understand costs vary according to region of the country,up most of that is housing cost differences. For someone with no mortgage, although costs of living will vary according to region they will be more similar than if housing costs were included. So I guess I was trying to work how much is actually 'required' for basic living.
£2300 which is what my brother is spending on household bills, cars, food.....day to day living (not leisure or school fees) seemed low to me, but perhaps it's not. I wonder if many people think they need more than that and therefore can't afford school fees. Most people seem to think £65k which is what he pays private school fees out of (without a mortgage of course) is too low for them to manage on - I assume that is because they spend more than £2300 on monthly living - could more people live on thT amount and thus afford school fees, or is he actually just being ridiculously frugal? That is what I was trying to work out.....a basic bottom line for living, from which people could add on their housing costs......and see what is left and if it is enough for school fees. Clearly in many cases it won't be, but I wonder if more people do have scope to spend less on yay-to-day living than they think. I'm not saying they should of course, everyone must choose what to spend their money on and I don't necessarily think scrimping on other things to afford school fees is the best approach.

yoyo1234 · 18/03/2015 21:04

Our household income is less and we have a mortgage and DS at private prep school. I think different things matter to different people and living costs vary.

Namehanger · 18/03/2015 21:18

£165k family income - £30k annual fees for two.

We have borrowed against the house, in repayment offset mortgage and then pay difference between mortgage repayments and school fees into pensions because tax efficient.

I earn the lesser amount but professional role and as kids get older will be able to work harder and earn more money.

Superexcited · 18/03/2015 21:30

I'm sure a lot of families would think £2300 after mortgage/rent and any school fees is quite a lot to live on especially if they only have one child. I'm sure that £2300 is more than the majority of families have after paying their mortgages and any school fees /child care bills but I could be wrong,

goldacre · 19/03/2015 20:09

Name changed for this. In our mid 40's. £135K basic household income with performance based bonuses on top. This year, our household income was £200K. Mortgage of £1600 pcm in offset repayment (approx. 7 yrs left, maybe less depending on our 'savings' pot).

We have 2 dc both at state primary. DC1 will be starting a selective independent come autumn at £14K pa. DC2 will most probably follow in a few years' time.

I am frugal/sensible, relative to our income. We put aside the majority of any bonuses for the 'education' pot by utilising our ISA allowances fully and have done so for the past few years in anticipation of secondary school fees. Excluding bonuses (which we don't get every year), we save approx. £2K pcm which is on top of our pension contributions.

I'm not a complete tightwad; we live in a great house and we indulge in good restaurants and love our holidays. However, I'm happy to drive a 8 yr old Focus and reading the summer holiday thread completely amazes me in the amount that people spend on their holidays compared to us when I know that we must be in the top 2% of annual household income.

LadySybilLikesSloeGin · 19/03/2015 20:28

It's easy to live on 2300 a month depending on how many mouth's your feeding and where you live. My rent, food and bills are less than 1k a month. There's 2 of us though so I'm sure if I was paying a mortgage on a large house and needing to feed more people then I'd struggle.

QTPie · 19/03/2015 21:22

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

morethanpotatoprints · 19/03/2015 22:43

We manage to live very well on about 1,500 per month (average) and fees will be about 2k per year, tops.
I know, that doesn't sound right, but not everybody is the same and private schools vary considerably.

granolamuncher · 19/03/2015 22:55

How nice it must be for income to be irrelevant!

A number of posts on this thread, including today, have pointed out that if you get bonuses alongside your salary, if you have no or a small mortgage, or if the grandparents are very rich and ready to help, then it's not too difficult to pay fees. Well yes, could we just agree all of that is obvious and get back to OP's question?

The lifestyles and budgets of the very rich might be interesting but the issue, and it's a major one (as confirmed by The Times on Tuesday) is how those who live on unadorned professional salaries can pay fees of the levels currently demanded by many schools.

morethanpotatoprints · 19/03/2015 23:12

granola

I don't think those who live on unadorned professional salaries can pay todays fees without help. That's pretty obvious too.

Some schools accept you if you are poor, on low income and heavily subsidise fees, they are a small percentage but they exist too and surely need to be mentioned as one way some afford private school fees and related costs.

The one my dd will attend will fully support those on out of work benefits, including travel, uniform etc and the fees are currently just short of 32k.
Fees are paid purely on income.

summerends · 19/03/2015 23:22

granola I was once told that a head of a middle of the road public school made a offguard comment that his school were n't catering for the thrifty middle classes.

The brutal truth is that for the more oversubscribed competitive schools your question is irrelevant, they don't need DCs of the 'unadorned' middle classes. They have enough brightest and best of the wealthy UK and internationals applying and can always cream off enough of the extremely bright or talented DCs of the rest of the population by entrance performance-related means tested bursaries. That percentage of bursaries may be as much as 20% of the pupils but even in that case it is a gesture to power the reputation of the school, rather than provide an elite education to the wider population, however well educated the parents are.

granolamuncher · 19/03/2015 23:34

morethanpotatoprints

Yes, most independent schools will help those on low incomes through bursaries. Some of the oldest and most illustrious schools have done that for hundreds of years.

The issue raised by OP is how those on middling incomes are to cope. They won't usually be able to get "help" from the schools: not only are their bursary funds too small to extend to parents who are doctors, teachers, university professors, and other professionals, they have also hiked the fees up at rates which bear no relation to salary rises (if any).

yoyo1234 · 19/03/2015 23:37

Beg for a payrise, change professions, increase your earnings by doing eg. private work on the side, apply for bursaries/scholarships.
Private schooling has never equally represented all of society. I do not think it is a major issue.

granolamuncher · 20/03/2015 00:01

I'm afraid you're right about the attitude of the heads of too many independent schools, summerends.

It's an attitude which was roundly condemned by the leader in Tuesday's Times. But I fear today's heads no longer pay any attention to The Times. As I noted up thread, the head of KCS Wimbledon recently said in a BBC documentary that Tatler magazine's schools guide was "important". This is about as far away from the ideals of the founders of the school as it would be possible to get.

On the recent SPGS thread, I quoted Dean Colet, founder of SPS, on the subject of covetousness, which he regarded as an "abominable pestilence".

Unfortunately, too many heads (and governors) only talk to the super rich now, ask them what they covet, give it to them, and put the fees up.

My question wouldn't be irrelevant to these heads if they were interested in the principles on which the schools which they are privileged to curate were founded.

Don't imagine that the brightest pupils are somehow rescued by means tested bursaries. There are many bright pupils, sometimes scholarship level, whose parents turn places down because the bursary threshold is too low and they just won't be able to afford the fees. That's the cause of all the interest in the issue: the squeezed middle have deserving DC too but their choices are more limited than those of the rich or of those eligible for bursaries.

morethanpotatoprints · 20/03/2015 00:07

granola

Please pardon my ignorance but is it the combination of the cost of living rising beyond most peoples means and high rises in fees or is it just a huge rise in fees that is the problem.
I know it isn't fair but more understandable if it is a combination imo, iyswim.

granolamuncher · 20/03/2015 00:12

No, it's not a major issue, yoyo, but it's one which prompted The Times to make it the subject of its number one leader on Tuesday, which is at least interesting and which chimed with the OP.

Begging for pay rises and applying for bursaries haven't generally produced the desired results for many of those affected, hence the discussion here.

Schools have never been equal but more and more are becoming quite weird polarised communities with 90% super rich and 10% poor with hardly any parents paying fees from salaries. It's a new phenomenon of the kind worth bringing up on MN.

granolamuncher · 20/03/2015 00:31

morethanpotatoprints

Of course, you're right, it's a combination of higher costs of living and fee hikes.

The point is that fee hikes have often been inflation busting (37% in 5 years was the record set by SPGS) while salaries have stagnated in these last few years.

These are choices the schools have made about their new market and about how relaxed they feel about abandoning the principles on which they were founded. Up to them. There are some honourable exceptions, though: some schools have made efforts to keep fee rises to a minimum.

cauchy · 20/03/2015 08:21

The issue raised by OP is how those on middling incomes are to cope. They won't usually be able to get "help" from the schools: not only are their bursary funds too small to extend to parents who are doctors, teachers, university professors, and other professionals, they have also hiked the fees up at rates which bear no relation to salary rises (if any).

Twenty-five years ago when I was at school there were virtually no children of teachers or academics at private schools. There were plenty of doctors' children and plenty of lawyers' children - demographics were heavily skewed. Self-employed parents could fudge their incomes and use assisted place schemes but those who did PAYE with employers couldn't. Many "professionals" earned above the assisted place limit but were not in a position to afford fees.

At my DC's schools now there are still plenty of doctors' and lawyers' children. The most noticeable difference now relative to 25-30 years ago is that typically both parents are working i.e. fees are paid out of 1.5-2 professional incomes.

As I said upthread, my partner and I paid school fees on two professor salaries with a 2k per month mortgage, with plenty of money to spare. (Two times professor salary = 140+k). Even if one of us worked part-time we could have still paid the fees, on 1.5 incomes. In my DC's school it is simply untrue to say that most parents are super wealthy or get help from grandparents or have paid off their mortgages.

I really don't understand why private schools should effectively increase their fees to subsidise parents who are e.g. doctors via bursaries. Even assuming one full-time salary from a doctor, with a stay at home second parent, such an income is high by national standards. (It would also be somewhat dubious to give bursaries to families in which one parent chooses to stay at home when they could earn, at the expense of families such as mine in which both parents work full-time.)

All of the arguments by Granolamuncher seem very London based. Even if the demographics of SPGS have changed substantially, the demographics of my DC's schools are really not very different from when I went to school.

I do agree that academic scholarships are less common, though. My family was above the assisted place limit by some way but not really in a position to afford school fees for all of us. My siblings and I got substantial scholarships (50-100%). Nowadays very few schools offer scholarships above 20%.

By the time my youngest DC reaches secondary the fees may well be above what we are willing to pay. But so be it - the DC can go to a state secondary instead. Pricing people out of private education will as a knock on effect probably improve the local state schools.

rabbitstew · 20/03/2015 09:19

I think more doctors' children, vets' children, dentists' children, politicians' children, journalists' children, solicitors' children, barristers' children, judges' children etc, attending state schools, the better - particularly if they don't all crowd into the same bl**dy state schools. That way, we might just get more state educated children thinking they like the sound of those careers and then we might get fewer tiresome statistics about how privately educated people are dominating those professions. We might also get a bit more money in the education budget to accommodate the expectations of these people. And if the result is that those careers become dominated by the wealthy who could afford private school fees, then we can have a revolution and kill all those annoying rich people. Grin

BakewellSlice · 20/03/2015 09:27

rabbitstew that happens in my kids' school here in Scotland but there is still no social movement that I can discern. The doctor's kids go into medicine and at the other end of the income scale kids leave school early.

The school just chugs along and it seems to me that it's the parents that make the difference.

Superexcited · 20/03/2015 09:28

We might also get a bit more money in the education budget to accommodate the expectations of these people

Nice idea, but very unrealistic. Chances are more children in state schools would just reduce the available budget per head.

Swipe left for the next trending thread