How do people afford private school?

[PopGoesTheWeaselYetAgain]

Following on from discussion House of Commons today, how do people afford private school fees? Is it by sacrificing holidays and other luxuries? That wouldn't by you a year, but did she perhaps mean a term? How do you pay for the other two terms?

I'd appreciate it if posters refrained from speculation. I'm interested in people's actual financial circumstances and decisions.

“Why do people seem to think everyone has been left property, a business or a huge inheritance?”

Because people always want other people to pay more tax and the concept of “tax the rich” sells well. There are huge regional differences too. People seem to not understand that a married couple, each person earning 100k, in London are not necessarily rich, in London if they only recently bought property. Because on a joint income of 200k you would be very well off in many other parts of the country, due to substantially lower housing costs. Also, if you are not a higher or highest earner, you may not realise how much tax those high earners really pay each year and how little they get back from the system (for those who then also pay for private education and healthcare, often a side benefit of highly paid jobs because the employers want you back at work). It is a vicious circle - employers keep having to pay more so people can actually be housed and government has to keep paying more housing benefit/tax credits etc for those who are not on high salaries. Meanwhile, house prices still keep going up and up.

I think if a government really expect parents to work full time (and often that is more than 40 hours per week for many people) then they also have to realise that people need more than just basic education from a school, they need wrap around clubs and a more holistic approach, things such as sports too and engaging after school care.

I think the difficulty is also that people assume that once kids go to secondary school you can just be hands off. However, the reality is far from that. Often teens, left to their own devices (in a literal sense), get up to no good, eat junk food, don’t exercise, spend hours online, hang around or become depressed. Who actually wants that for their own kids when they know it is detrimental to health? So if you are an engaged parent you either pay up for private education or you give them your actual time to engage them (and you cut back on your work).
Childrearing is really important hard work. It really annoys me that politicians still do not understand this.

It might be that even highly educated people with good careers who have children while in their mid 20s, so have primary age children in their early 30's, are less likely to be able to afford private school at that stage in their careers.

Correct. A significant proportion of the kids at the school where my relative teaches are from other countries. Mostly the Middle East & China.

For us, and alot off us at my kids prep, the mums went back to work. Lots are SAHM to pre school then go back to their professional jobs (finance, lawyers, operations in big firms, teachers, civil servants) when kids go to school. Hisbands income covers living costs. These are the type of professional jobs that now involve lots of WFH, combined with the long hours of private school mean that not many of the kids are in wrap around care. The whole set up is designed around working parents in a way the local state system is not.

Once mine are in secondary, fees will wipe out my income. But I am totally okay with that, my children see me work and they get great opportunities.

But that is home counties prep. Central London/outside the South east may be very different.

Same way they afford big houses - they are either high earners, or there is family money.

a large rise in fees will make a difference go lots of people, I’d have thought especially at primary age. I didn’t think our local preps had enough value add over the state primary to be worth the investment and financial pressure. Add on vat and that cost/benefit analysis will change for a chunk of people who were borderline. That might also not be too much of an issue re places as birth numbers drop.

Secondary becomes harder because people will use other means like moving house for catchment if they feel secondary private is out of reach and then you most likely have a bigger problem re inequalities and access. It will really depend area by area re the choice between state and private. The Rich choosing boarding will probably carry on regardless as quiet frankly if you can already avoid £40k and have picked that over a day, the extra probably isn’t going to make a difference.

It’s ridiculous. There’s no VAT on flights (air passenger duty is often far less than the equivalent VAT would be - eg £13 on a flight to Spain).

The Labour Party seem to think that education is a luxury but that flights are not……

2DD’s in private throughout and DS headed to private secondary this year (after local primary school). We pay each year’s fees upfront from DH’s bonus, which comes through in July (and invest the rest). We don’t go without or make sacrifices. We have exactly the standard of living I’d have hoped for, plenty of money to invest and lovely holidays. I work 20 hours a week so spend loads of time with the kids. DH works longer hours but is still available at the weekends, for 2 school runs and family meals each week ( hike after 8 the other 3 nights) and can take time out for school events.

I am not sure I’d be great at making huge lifestyle sacrifices for the sake of private schooling, as I love travelling and doing interesting things. I’d certainly not sacrifice saving for the future. And I wouldn’t go till time and lose time with them to pay school fees. That seems totally counter productive.

I think private schools should lose their charitable status. There’s little justification for it and I’d happily pay 20% extra if it went into improving state education.

I think if Labour's policy is adopted state schools will really need to up their SEN game. They will see a lot of traffic from students sent to private schools because their SEN could not be properly supported in their state school. Many of these children were sent to smaller (non-SEN) private schools that may risk closure under these plans. Often these families moved their children to private out of desperation. Not because they had deep pockets or huge annual bonuses.

So I think Labour would need to plan not only for more children returning to the state system but more SEN children. Many with needs that don't meet the threshold for SEN schools but who were suffering in state schools too large or too under-resourced to meet their needs.

This is true @Nappyvalley15 . We chose the school for our DS because he has a range of special educational needs and diagnoses. The state schools in our catchment area were quite open about how they did not have the capacity to cope with more students with additional needs. I know that many parents have chosen the school we go to for the same reason. The SEN provision is very good for what is a decent sized cohort. (Going by our latest school inspectorate report we have circa 25% of students with additional needs. )

@Another76543 "The Labour Party seem to think that education is a luxury"

Education isn't a luxury. Private education is.

“2DD’s in private throughout and DS headed to private secondary this year (after local primary school). We pay each year’s fees upfront from DH’s bonus, which comes through in July (and invest the rest). We don’t go without or make sacrifices. We have exactly the standard of living I’d have hoped for, plenty of money to invest and lovely holidays. I work 20 hours a week so spend loads of time with the kids. DH works longer hours but is still available at the weekends, for 2 school runs and family meals each week ( hike after 8 the other 3 nights) and can take time out for school events.

I am not sure I’d be great at making huge lifestyle sacrifices for the sake of private schooling, as I love travelling and doing interesting things. I’d certainly not sacrifice saving for the future. And I wouldn’t go till time and lose time with them to pay school fees. That seems totally counter productive.

I think private schools should lose their charitable status. There’s little justification for it and I’d happily pay 20% extra if it went into improving state education.”

I find this post interesting. Why did your DS not go to private school throughout like his sisters?

People in this type of fortunate position will simply prepay fees in advance to avoid the VAT coming in in the first place. They will prepay before the VAT obligation crystallises into law.

It is those barely affording it who will be affected, many SEN kids, two full working time parents (often in professions such as medicine) etc and lots of smaller schools will close. I would like to see some protection of school fees parents have already paid and make sure there is no indirect money making out of smaller schools closing and a promise by government and councils that all the kids who will be affected will be taken into the state system. It is not going to help HMRC if professional working parents don’t have school places for their DCs or places miles away.

In my aquaintences
Family A - out of incredibly high earned income
Family B - out of earned income. They dont have a mortgage as live in grandparents home.
Family C - earned income plus a contribution from grandparents
Family D - bursary plus live in tiny overcrowded flat over their shop and work 24/7
Family E - mum died, dad used the life insurance and felt the increased pastoral care was important.

My sons school fees are paid for by the tax payer. He goes to a charity SEN school for children with complex needs. There is no state school. Its either that or no school. People generally caveat that this is ok.

It still accounts for less than 6% of education in the U.K. though.

Can't people see what this Govt are doing? Normalising everything that poorer people simply can't afford. Private Healthcare, private schools, decent food.

Desensitisation and normalisation.

Don be fooled.

Many children have been failed by the state system which is why their parents have moved them to private. Many people live in areas with abysmal state options. In those cases, private education is not a luxury. Not everyone has the choice of a decent state school. Private schools are not all like Eton.

State education should not be a lottery. A decent state education should exist for all. It’s simply not the case though.

In any case, Angela Rayner said herself last week that “the state sector do a fantastic job, so don't waste your money on private schooling. You can do just as good in our state sector and we should celebrate that.”

So, how can they possibly argue that private schools are a luxury when they say that they’re no better than the state sector?

From income but that is variable. So in good years we put the money aside and in bad years we use it. We will have to tighten our belts to continue if Labour's plans are put in to action. I'd love state education to be as good - but it's not, it's a lottery, and round here I do not fancy our chances. And Angela Raynor saying that she went to a comprehensive which did her no harm when she left without any qualifications does not inspire me in the least.

I went to a Comp, but fortunately got a decent primary education before teachers were on strike / withheld co-curricular activities / having breakdowns which is what happened for my senior years. I didn't have a maths teacher for two years - why would I do that to my kids when I have an option - even if it means long long hours of work & not having a load of flashy stuff to show for it.

@Another76543 "In those cases, private education is not a luxury."

Private education is ALWAYS a luxury!
It fascinates me that the few underperforming state schools are almost always in areas of significant social deprivation- which also also seem to be populated by people who can afford private education. Something doesn't add up there!.

The state options are amongst the best in the country here, they still wouldn’t be able to provide adequate support for my Dc with additional needs. For a lot of us private is the only option, it’s not a luxury but a necessity!

There are far more than a “few” underperforming state schools. Even schools rated as “good” often have significant problems. There is a local state
school rated “good” which has serious behavioural problems and an enormous staff turnover. Pupils are leaving and being sent to other state schools and private schools because it has got so bad. Leaving such a school is not a “luxury”. That school is not in a deprived area by any means.

It’s not a luxury to go to a school where pupils sit and listen, aren’t in fear of daily violence (chair throwing etc), and where the teachers are happy to work. It’s not a luxury to send your quiet, conscientious child to a school where they can work hard without getting bullied (as often happens in “good” state schools).

You only have to read the numerous threads on MN to realise the state of our education system. Yes, there are some great state schools. There are also plenty of awful ones. Teachers are leaving in droves and schools are struggling to recruit replacements. This article highlights the issue. I don’t think it’s a luxury to send your child to a school where they have a maths teacher and language teacher, for example.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/7-bleak-findings-that-show-school-recruitment-crisis-is-intensifying/#:~:text=This%20follows%20a%20rise%20of,65%20per%20cent%20last%20year.

Teachers aren’t leaving state schools because they’re lovely places to study and work. They’re leaving because conditions are so awful. That’s not just a handful of underperforming schools either - it’s across the board.

The fact remains though that Angela Rayner said that private schools were a waste of money and no better than state schools. How, then, can she argue that private schools are a “luxury”?

I think the arguments for private health care are quite similar.

On the one hand, the existence of private health care means doctors especially senior doctors do less NHS hours. On the other hand, it means private patients are funding their better salaries the tax payer does not want to. On the one hand, the state saves money and reduces waiting lists, on the other hand, it doesn’t because doctors are drawn to private healthcare which increases NHS waiting lists.
NHS care can also be a complete lottery.

We have a good GP and a good NHS dentist, we also had an excellent state primary and excellent state secondaries accessibly to us. We are privileged and educated and the system works for us and we know how to use it. We would move if we had to and we would know exactly how to do that. We also know how to supervise and engage our kids and our house is full of books and screen time is limited. We have been able to choose schools where most parents have similar values to us. We would not have wanted our kids to go to school with kids whose parents don’t share similar values. This isn’t about money at all, but educational outlook. Our kids go to school with lots of immigrants who are not well off but have very motivated, engaged parents.

To somehow pretend that private schools are the root of all privilege in this country, simply because many in the Tory party went to private schools is disingenuous.

I grew up in a country with excellent state schools, but there was tons of privilege there too. The posh rich people still went to school together in the state system and knew how to navigate it so they ended up together (with all the networking potential you see here in private schools). France, Germany etc all have private schools too but without the kind of class war we have here over them, but behind the scenes it is the same story in terms of “advantage” some kids have over others, right from birth.

Personally, I am perfectly happy for other people to pay for their children’s education if that suits their families. I don’t think they should be penalised for it just because of some tribal and immature competition between the Labour Party and the Tories. I think if that paid education translates to well educated healthy kids who do sport etc and don’t become obese and reach a higher benchmark than they may otherwise have had, then that is in society’s best interest. If SEN kids need the smaller class sizes I applaud the parents for making the financial sacrifices to send them there.

I am a Labour voter but this Corbynista policy I despise. It is fake, through and through. It is an attack on children and some families. It won’t even benefit state education. It will lead to even more of a scramble for good catchments/house prices there and it will lead to private education super businesses. If you want to tax the rich more, just tax them more at the top end and their wealth too. They won’t do that though because we are desperate for corporate investment.

Instead we are going to hear about this tribal hate policy in the press for ages. It is a distraction.

@Another76543

The fact remains though that Angela Rayner said that private schools were a waste of money and no better than state schools. How, then, can she argue that private schools are a “luxury”?"

I don't understand. That's more or less the definition of a luxury, isn't it? Something that you don't actually need but want.

@Araminta1003 "To somehow pretend that private schools are the root of all privilege in this country, simply because many in the Tory party went to private schools is disingenuous."

I don't think they are.

On the subject of Angela Rayner who grew up on a council estate, got pregnant at 16 and became a grandmother at 37. She did not go to university etc and often makes simple grammatical errors when she speaks in public.

I have full respect for all that she has achieved given her circumstances. However, she is never going to be someone’s whose values or educational views I am going to follow. She did not even go to university. Who is she to lecture us on Education?

We can afford private education because (a) I'm a teacher at the school, and (b) we have a low mortgage because we're in the catchment of the worst school (by results and Ofsted rating) in the city. I think that house price is a big factor!