Private schools can't read inflation figures

[roguedad]

Is anyone else getting notices of extortionate fee rises right now? I had been hoping for maybe 1-2% in the light of inflation being zero, but I have just had notices from a Oxfordshire junior and senior of about 5.9% and 6.7% from this year to next. Both letters laden with excuses of course, neither really acceptable.
Those not able to access private ed might well say "serves you right". We have already said that to ourselves so please, no posts stating the obvious.

Are they running at full capacity, would that make a difference?

Not sure what our dses school is doing. They seem to have plenty of money-they positively seek out pupils to award scholarships to.

Suspect our DS's are at the same school, OP. Prompted by your post, I've just done the sums following a letter from school yesterday - yep, 6.7 percent.

Our salaries have gone up by 1 and 2 percent this year and we thought we were lucky to get anything. Can't imagine they're giving their staff any raises higher than that.

I feel a letter coming on asking for more explanation. I thought all the new buildings and developments were paid for from separate fundraising so the excuses don't really add up for me.

I've just seen one, where it is explained in some detail that 2.8% of the total rise is increase to NI (there were huge school fee hikes in the 00s for same reason) and another 1.75% as they would no longer be able to contract out as part of pension scheme.

That was almost the entire rise, as new buildings cost has been amortised over many years.

School fees inflation has been more than other indices for the last 20 years or so.

Also employers contributions to teachers pensions are also going up by about 2% and salary costs are one of the biggest costs for schools.

Sorry! 2.38% is increased employer contributions to teacher's pension scheme. Not NI.

But staff heavy businesses are vulnerable to new costs of employment. In this case, they can pass on such costs. Other businesses go under.

(IIRC, Labour (and probably other parties) haven't ruled out an NI increase to balance the books when they get in. That could be inflationary all round).

If those are typical figures, then it's nearly 3.9% just to stand still.

So that makes OP's rise 2.0- 2.8% in terms of really more.

Roguedad I think a certain Oxford day school is aware of a wave of a popularity and is charging what the market will bear so that the margins are there for money in other 'pots' to be used to expand facilities etc and make the school more high profile internationally.

Sorry, the term 'day' school is a misnomer here.

I am indeed in Oxfordshire. The 6.7 is a mixed day/boarder senior and the 5.9 a day junior. There are some new facilities at the former, but all the same....

When you say 'excuses' do you mean explanations?
When our fee increase letter arrives, there is always a complete explanation and breakdown - no 'excuses' - and they relate to employment costs.
Also, better teachers are more expensive! They can and do move for pay increases and schools need to retain the best staff, like any organisation where good employees are in short supply.

The manner in which school fees increases have outpaced inflation in recent years is one of the issues discussed on the "level of family income required" thread. It was also the subject of a leader 10 days ago in The Times, which accused schools of abandoning the middle classes.

The consensus on the other thread was that the "nouveau poor" (salaried doctors, dentists, engineers, accountants) didn't deserve to send their DC to private schools any more and we must just face up to the reality that the market can bear their fee increases, i.e. a market which can pay them out of bonuses, profit shares, "little inheritances", and the generosity of super rich grandparents.

I feel sorry for parents who calculate they can afford fees and then get hit by rises like this, which bear no relation to their own rises in income, if any. I also feel sorry for the schools, which are squeezing out the middle and becoming weird polarised communities with a smattering of bursaries and a majority of pupils whose fees are paid from sources, which couldn't be regarded as "earnings".

Pension contributions and other staff costs have risen but schools could choose to mitigate those by increasing class sizes a tiny bit and foregoing other luxuries. They choose not to because they can get away with it and because they don't care.

There are some honourable exceptions, even in London.

Oxford, unfortunately, has been afflicted by this pandering to the super rich ever since Andrew Halls was head of MCS. He's now at KCS Wimbledon where he was heard to say on a BBC documentary that Tatler's schools guide was "important". Those are the values of "leading" heads these days. We can choose to reject them.

Although this report issued last week by the IFS relates to the state sector, it does highlight many of the costs increases which will impact the private sector too, namely higher pension and NI contributions as well as wage inflation. You certainly won't be alone in seeing higher than inflation fee rises this year, and over the next fee years.

On e solution is to make teachers have the same pensions as the average private sector with an employer with only 5 staff (i.e. most UK employees) no paid sick days and the like.

Our school does/did this.

Combined with the fee going up by age anyway (what is that about, actually?!) we now pay 9k a year for prep, compared to 6k when we started 3 years ago.

We are back to State for secondary.

Quite happy with it too, luckily. So no bitterness or regrets.

But yes OP, you are not alone!

But like any business, schools can choose how to deal with costs rises. There are plenty of schools which have chosen to increase their pupil intake and not their staff numbers, thereby mitigating the effects of NI and pension increases and maintaining wider social diversity.

We looked at this on the SPGS thread where MN 164 produced useful extracts from that school's accounts. Its fees rose by 37% in 5 years. One reason appeared to be it had recruited 11 additional teachers. That's just providing luxury to a demanding segment of the super rich. It's got nothing to do with educational benefit.

Private school teachers have not seen big salary rises btw. Far from it. Some heads have but that's a different story.

....as to Tatler's school guide, even Tatler did an article recently on which state schools are so good, you don't need to fork out for private

David Cameron's DD is going state too.

the culture is changing I think. I know people who easily could afford private, and have been to Eton/public school themselves, and are happy to send their kids to the local comp (for example in Winchester or Guildford)

Yes, the culture is changing but some "leading" heads, who win Sunday Times and Tatler awards, have played an active part in changing it. For the worse. They deserve our contempt.

..and then these "leading heads" give interviews in the Times (Andrew Halls) complaining that the fee rises they have implemented have resulted in their schools being full of oligarch's children. Friends with DC at his school definitely think the culture has changed there in a short time, and not necessarily for the better.

In saying the culture is changing for the worse, I mean that some schools are no longer available as choices for the squeezed middle. The fact that parents who could still afford them choose state schools instead is welcome. It would be better for everybody if more people could have such choices.

alliandcroc I've heard the same from KCS and from MCS in Oxford. Halls is the common factor. Blinded by accolades and deaf to reason. The founders of these schools would weep if they could see them now.

Ours have risen by 2.5% to £35 610 in the letter telling us this its states that this does not cover the cost of running the school (which is full), an endowment, trading and fund raising in addition to the fees are necessary to do this. They have risen faster than inflation for some years now. Upcoming changes in state pension law, national insurance and teachers pensions schemes are mentioned as additional expenses. In the final paragraph all who are worried are advised to apply for a bursary.
I'm not surprised in this increase nor contemptuous of the school in fact I thought it could have been a bigger rise. The pupil/staff ration is 1:7 which I think is great, the staff are incredibly dedicated to the boys, my DS is happy and very well supported, doing well academically, having great fun doing his chosen sport and getting exactly the sort of broad education I want him to get therefore for us it's money well spent. What could be better to spend it on than a wonderful education for our DS?

2.5% is far more reasonable but £35610 seems kind of crazy. Offering bursaries to people who could afford just short of £35k but not c£800 more sounds pretty whacky to me too. Is that a good use of the bursary funds?

Perhaps people were struggling before the increase and didn't apply for a bursary because they didn't feel they would be eligible. Many erroneously believe the cut off point in terms of annual income is much lower than it actually is.

It's good use of bursary funds if it keeps boys in the school. Being forced to move children for whatever reason and what ever age is very disruptive especially at boarding schools where pupils identify very strongly with the school, very strong bonds are formed between the pupil and also between teachers and pupils.

One of the reasons for the hike in fees is the never ending building projects that schools have embarked on. They now all seem to need new state of the art theatres, sport centres, 6th firm blocks with Internet cafés etc. In fact some of the schools are constant building sites as a result. This seems to have become another element in the competitive race between schools.