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.

Why is your friend "desperately" seeking a bursary, happygardening?

If the schools are too expensive and don't have sufficient bursary funds, that's up to those schools, isn't it? If they're in the SE, they're unlikely to be struggling, just deciding to channel income into new facilities and new teachers, not into helping people with fees. Their choice to price her out and to tell porkies on their websites. She should just accept it's hopeless. Maybe go and start her own "no frills" school.

People seek bursaries for a whole raft of reasons but I suspect it's generally because they feel disillusioned with what the state is offering in a variety of area and think their DC would be better off at an independent school.

Oh well.. either school are businesses (or fashion statements) where they should be allowed to do what they please, or they are charity who must take into account of needs of those they serve - and that includes the (salaried?) MC who cannot afford the inflation++ rises with no tangible and measurable educational benefits.

Perhaps the schools could have their cakes and eat it too, but perhaps not.

Exactly, topsy.

Interesting discussion.
Letter today from DC school - rise of 3.9% which I don't think it bad - when our first DC went to the school we figured on 5% pa.
The school does not throw money around on vanity projects, The DC are happy and the teachers are fantastic - one of the best is a teacher without QTS who started at the school as a TA after Uni- really inspirational - lack of QTS completely irrelevant. The school does pay their teachers well above the norm, and we have no quibble with that.
The school gives bursaries to poor children, but also the 6th formers do do outreach teaching/workshops in local schools. Parents support these endeavours - I think the school has the balance right.

"Perhaps the schools could have their cakes and eat it too, but perhaps not."

If the law on charities was rewritten, and the schools could continue without charitable status, then I think you might see an absolute stampede to take it up.

But I'm not sure any party (at present) has an actual proposed law to do that, not least because the wider charitable sector doesn't want any precedent that protected charitable assets could become private property, or that education was no longer be a charitable activity.

Education isn't always a charitable activity. Protected assets shouldn't become private property just like that - they ought to be sold and paid for... Even if schools could get away with getting charitable assets for free, which would be scandalous, I actually think parents sending their children to "charitable" private schools might be a bit alarmed to think they had become "profit making," and wouldn't be quite so happy with 5% fee increases if they thought these were going towards shareholder profits. So I don't actually believe there would be a stampede towards profit-making status, tbh.

I think English private schools being largely "charitable" is an excellent sales wheeze. I really don't believe they want to lose their charitable status AT ALL. They sell themselves to the wealthy on the basis of the promise that everything they get is ploughed into their privileged children's education... Frankly, I think the wealthy, who know how profit is made, are happier with letting a tiny number of less well off people join the club than with the idea of their school fees increasing shareholders' profit.

"I think you might see an absolute stampede to take it up. "

Let me make it clear that I am not against school being charities but I do expect charities to behave like charities. The Duck Test says that
if it t looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

If parents in the school are happy with 25% rises and have those rises allocated to bursaries, field sharing, free music concerts for locals then that is fine. However, if the parents like roguedad feel the pressure and the school think they should be able to charge what the 'market can bear', then the Duck Test should conclude that this is another type of 'duck'.

Actually, there are many schools that are run as Private Ltd companies. Many others have recently converted into Academies, so there is no difficulty to join the stampede at all. If a school is particularly desperate, it could cease all 'charitable activities' such as field sharing, bursaries and its charitable status will be terminated and will be able to join the 'stampede!'

" if they thought these were going towards shareholder profits."

That didn't stop people from donating to big name charities such as one that paid £533k severance to its chief executive and others which pays 6 figure sums to their managements.

Is profits going to the 'agents' more acceptable then going to the shareholders?

Further, well run Private Ltd private schools continue to attract many willing fees paying parents.

I'm late to this but agree with the op - we've just had notification of above inflation increases and I just think what are they on?

@Barbarella - Do you mind sharing the % figure (rounded) to see where this is heading?

The range here is the WC on 2.5% (very reasonable) to the 6.7% of OP school.
However, I suppose WC's 2.5% is as much as OP's 6.7%'s in absolute £ term.

topsy777 - is profit going to both chief executives AND shareholders more acceptable? Surely you don't think it's one or the other?

topsy let's be realistic Win Coll's 2.5% increase is hardly going to make any difference to parents already capable of stumping up a considerable sum, and remember most parents are paying for at least two children to attend boarding school, I'm always surprised by the number paying for three or four. Often when my DH receives the bill he comments "I wouldn't like to be X now opening a bill(s) for 4!" Less than a £1000 over year spread over three term, most people "extras" each term are more than the increase. But 6.7% on a day fees could be a significant rise because those paying day fees are I suspect more likely to be scratching around to pay the fees. I'd also be interested to know how many paying fees which have risen by 6 7% were also advised in the same letter to apply for a bursary if the rise was likely to cause a problem.
granola advocates reducing costs and therefore enabling more squeezed MC families to afford the fees but I just can't see how this can be done. Ok maybe a few less teachers/increasing class sizes although I'm unconvinced and suspect that this could annoy existing customers, but where else can substantial saving be made without having a very significant impact especially when schools may already not be covering their running costs. I think people are deluding themselves if they think schools pay new building costs with cash lounging around in the bank I suspect most schools mortage existing assets/take out some kin dog business loan/sell off existing assets to pay building cost.
Of course more schools should offer more than a token number of bursaries and too non scholars as well but where does the money come from to do this?

"Kin dog" weird! kind of obviously.

Ours have gone up by 7%

rabbitstew - I think of neither actually.

If a private Ltd school charges as much as the Op school but deliver much more A* (or other acceptable measurements) and yet still show good profits and good executive pay, then so be it.

It is market driven, out-doing thy neighbour school fees increases WITHOUT tangible educational benefit in the name of charity that is the problem here.

happygardening - I kind of agree with you that given the expectations, a 2.5% at WC is not excessive and given its prestige, shows considerable restrain.

Others are perhaps less restrained.

Barbarella - Thank you.

ONS says cost of education service has increased by 0% (March RPI I think).....

So is anyone challenging it or are we all meekly paying up, captive customers that we are?

(Assuming most of us don't want to move our children)

There was a piece in the news a couple of years back trying to dispel the idea that private school teachers were paid more than state teachers, based on the idea that they weren't getting pay rises and were working longer hours.

I think this may have some truth where fees have risen with or above inflation but teachers salaries have been kept on hold - whilst state teachers have had a small but inflation linked increase. However, for the headline making "uber" private schools this appears not to be the case. Of a small group of private schools, those schools are few in number (30-40 maybe?).

Statistics are dangerous things and I'm going to be guilty of making comparisons between apples and pears, but I think the "average" for state and private is very different to the "uber school" situation.

For example, the "average" state secondary schools national salary for a full time equivalent teacher was, based on the Nov 2013 DoE data:

£38,521 (FTE state teacher average, increase of inflation minus 1%?)

My local comp in central London pays teachers an average of about £41k so the "London" weighting is not much.

Compare to a well known west London "uber school" .....

The average for all staff (including TAs, kitchen etc) was £43,660 (up from average of £41,940 last year an increase of 4%), but let's try to get the teachers in focus.

There are 112 "educational staff" of which 30 (over a quarter) are paid over £60,000 - an increase of 5 from the year before (through hiring and pay rises).

Twenty staff are paid £60-70k, six are paid £70-80k, two are paid £80-90k, one £100-110k and one (the head I assume) paid £170k. The average amongst this top quarter paid is £73k, almost double the national average.

Looking at it another way:

State schools spend an average of £5,865 per pupil in England and £8,641 in London. This has probably risen by about 10% in the last 4 years.

The same "uber school" in London spent £20,760 per pupil, a 4% increase in 1 single year.

Attracting teachers that will keep the small list of "uber schools" in their esteemed positions takes a lot of salary and benefits and a lot of investment in infrastructure. This is where the "cream of the crop" are tempted. Thank goodness there are many who sacrifice such offers to stay in the state system.

How can anyone challenge it? I didn't like the price Waitrose was charging for the over priced conditioner I have to put on my hair so I now buy it significantly cheaper on line through Amazon, ditto dog food, but I still do nearly much of the rest of my shopping there. Parents don't have this luxury either pay up or leave.

MN164 also many of the "uber" boarding schools offer accommodation, every teacher at Win Coll is provided with accommodation within a stones throw of the school very nice most of it is as well. In areas like London and Winchester where housing is astronomically expensive this is a real bonus.

"It is market driven." So is what the banks get away with. So are house prices. Virtually EVERYONE wants a good education for their children. You can get away with a lot where need and demand is far greater than supply. Private schools know that. They especially know that if they're out for profit.