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.

We are looking at sending our DC to private secondary. They are currently in a very good state primary but the state secondary provision in our area is not great.

We looked at the fees for local private schools which are about £20-£22k per year and started saving when eldest started Primary. By the time she starts secondary (in 2 years) we will have put away enough to fund her through to A levels, plus extra for trips, uniform, etc. We will then start putting away money for her brother who will start secondary 3 years after her.

It would be impossible for us to fund directly out of monthly income, but by saving in advance, and the effects of compound interest, it works.

@Araminta1003 "She did not even go to university. Who is she to lecture us on Education?"

Someone who went to state school and whose children went to state school? Someone who knows her way round the system the majority of the British people use? Do you think she would be more qualified to talk about education if she went to Roedean?

“@Araminta1003 "She did not even go to university. Who is she to lecture us on Education?"

Someone who went to state school and whose children went to state school? Someone who knows her way round the system the majority of the British people use? Do you think she would be more qualified to talk about education if she went to Roedean?”

I also went to state school and so do my DC. However, I also went to Cambridge University. I won’t be taking educational advice from Angela Rayner. It has nothing to do with where she went to school and all to do with what I want for my own children and what my goals are for them. That certainly does not include dropping out of school at 16 and getting pregnant then.

@CurlewKate - be careful when you use phrases like the British people. There are plenty of people in this country who are paying taxes and are not “British”.

The Reeves’ sisters are far more credible ambassadors on Education than Angela Rayner.

@Araminta1003
"That certainly does not include dropping out of school at 16 and getting pregnant then."

I can't speak for Angela Rayner, of course. But I'm pretty sure that's not her aspiration for her children. Or yours or mine.

Through sad circumstance I have no mortgage. I afford school fees because they are lower than many private schools, and I drive a sensible economic car. I do look forward to the day I get that £1k a month to spend on me though and will be having some very lovely holidays then!

That's interesting, I'd assumed that most people paying for private school would have been privately educated. We could easily afford to pay private school fees but having done perfectly fine at state school (state school being a comp getting 45% 5 A-C passes at the time) I can't see the value.

@ThrappleApple no one in either mine or DH's immediate family went to private school - my parents both left school at 14 with no qualifications, DH's did go to Uni and became teachers.

I think the decision to go Private or not (when you have the financial means) is a lot easier when you have easy access to a good state school. Personally I went to a god awful inner city state school (GCSE pass rate was 8%, school was in the bottom 10 for truancy in the whole of England, etc) and would move hell and high water to send my kids to Private if a similar state option was on the table for them.

I would totally vote for a political party that invests in the state education sector such that state schools are as good as private. The extra tax I'd be paying to cover this would be less than what I pay in school fees! They manage this in most of the rest of the Europe where there is limited demand for private education because state schools are great.

Until that happens though my kids are staying in private school.

I'm also pro taxing private education if the extra money raised goes into raising the standard of comprehensives. Any fool can see we need more money in the system and those who should be putting that money in are those who can afford it.

I'd just add that another far more eloquent poster than me wrote on another "Private v State" thread that opting for Private is, for a lot of parents, not about wanting to hot house their children to get perfect results or to mix in "higher" social circles, but about supporting their child to find the right environment for them to thrive.

And before I am jumped on, no I am not trying to say that parents who cannot afford Private are not trying their best for their child. Being able to afford Private is a huge privilege and in an ideal world all schools would be fully funded seats of excellence and enrichment, but the fact is that, sadly, they are not.

I've copied and pasted the comment from the other thread below, credit to @Thepeopleversuswork

I don't think the standard of teaching is necessarily always better in private schools (though it seems to be good in my DD's school).

I couldn't give a shit about her playing lacrosse or rubbing shoulders with investment bankers' kids or going on expensive school trips. The additional enrichment activities are nice but not a dealbreaker. Even the class sizes are a nice to have but not essential.

The thing that really clinched it for me was that I desperately desperately wanted to avoid my DD being educated alongside children who think it isn't cool to be educated. Some of her cohort in (mixed state) primary were starting to develop attitudes like this: boys hanging around outside school trying vaping, girls competing with each other for the attentions of these useless no marks, unpleasantly sexual SM and notes being sent around, truancy and shoplifting. All of this becoming a major social preoccupation for the year group.

It was all relatively innocent at at the point where I had to make a choice (year 6) but I could tell where it was heading and I was having none of it. If I had had to double mortgage my house to avoid her growing up around that I would happily have done so. It's the worst possible environment for a child who wants to work to be in at that age.

I'm not saying that this doesn't happen in private school. Private schools are not a panacea: there are bad and damaged kids at private school for sure, there is bullying (occasionally pretty bad bullying) and kids drop out and vape in the toilets and all the rest of it. But private schools, by and large, don't allow a cohort of kids who want to disrupt or belittle other kids to stop them learning to become dominant in a class or year group.

I'm really sorry that this is what's happened to comprehensive education in Britain. But it has, certainly where I live. I was extremely lucky to be able to pay to avoid this and not a day goes by when I don't feel ambivalent and guilty about this as I realise most people don't have that option.

I'm quite sure there are lots of kids in comprehensive schools who thrive despite this. But the bottom line for me is that I didn't want my (vulnerable, shy and anxious) daughter to be permanently in fight or flight mode, having to constantly try to be her best self despite an environment which incentivises her not to. I want the environment, as far as possible, to work in her favour and a big urban comprehensive would not have worked in her favour.

“I would totally vote for a political party that invests in the state education sector such that state schools are as good as private. The extra tax I'd be paying to cover this would be less than what I pay in school fees! They manage this in most of the rest of the Europe where there is limited demand for private education because state schools are great.

Until that happens though my kids are staying in private school.

I'm also pro taxing private education if the extra money raised goes into raising the standard of comprehensives. Any fool can see we need more money in the system and those who should be putting that money in are those who can afford it.”

Most of you are missing the point that the reason state education is failing is partly to do with the lack of selection. Germany, France, Switzerland etc they all have a grammar system! Labour killed the grammars system in the UK and brought on the boom in private education. Private Education charges a bomb now so it is not a surprise that the taxman wants a piece of the pie.

A grammar system need not be a toxic 11 plus affair. It can be done through gentle teacher recommendation in consultation with parents, as it is done in much of Europe. It can be done through proper streaming. Learning Latin and Greek etc is important to some people. If nobody does it, there will be hardly any Classics courses left at uni. Thoughts/intellectual debate etc - it is all really important stuff in a Democracy especially in a Cancel Culture. A full on academic education needs to be available in the state sector too, for those who choose it for their kids.

The Labour Party should not attack private schools without a credible alternative that works for the most academic kids too, as well as the SEN kids and everyone else. The whole sector is failing most children, just like the NHS is failing many people. And for Education, it is not just the underfunding by the Tories for years, it is a post pandemic phenomenon. Time to start putting children first again and their Education and telling the truth.

It is not just behaviour issues, teacher recruitment crisis, childhood obesity/lack of sports in schools, Asbestos exposure is now a real concern as well - again, there has been no real clarity in that regard. One of the most sought after comps in my area has an Asbestos Management Plan in place now - all hell has broken loose amongst the rather privileged catchment. How is it OK for government to dig their head in the sand about kids being exposed to Asbestos? Vapes everywhere etc… they just do not give a shit about kids because kids do not and cannot vote.

What we have done is given our children the option of attending private school for the last 2 year of secondary plus 6th form, the eldest 2 decided to stay in state. Third child has also said they want to stay where they are and our youngest age 6 we have decided to put in private from year 7 as long as our financial situation stays the same. We would have had to have made serious cut backs to do private all the way through for all of them which we were not prepared to do. We love our holidays and our home and the children have been very lucky in the places we have visited , access to lots of sports and activities and have childhoods a million miles from what mine was like.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼Exactly this. I went to school in Germany where in my time there were hardly any private schools (there was one in our big city) because there was a proper grammar school system. There were loads of grammar schools in every area and they didn't have any entrance exams. It was all decided on your grades and teacher recommendations in primary.

Is the question which is underlying the OP’s question, how do those who don’t earn extremely high salaries manage to afford it? Is it that OP sees people who appear to be in a similar financial position to themselves who are managing it, when they themselves can’t see a way to afford it it? I think a lot of people ask this question.

If this is the question, I think a number if things mean those who do t have astronomical salaries bring it within reach for more people;

• having planned ahead financially for many years - only a smallish mortgage to start with, possibly over-paid or even paid off by the point of secondary fees.
• just one child
• outside help people don’t know about - grandparents, inheritance etc
• discounts due to working in the school, bursaries, scholarships

There are a range of people with kids in private schools, with the proportion of the different categories varying according to the type of school and level of fees.

• Absolutely loaded, for whom the fees are a drop in the ocean and barely noticed
• Extremely well off - can afford the fees pretty easily without any lifestyle impact
• Very well off - have large house, holidays etc and maybe make minor sacrifices to afford the fees….2 holidays instead of 4 type thing.
• Well-off - substantial income, but some sacrifices needed and willingly undertaken to afford food fees - maybe remaining in a slightly smaller house or less desirable location than preferred, holidays taken but not as luxurious as might like, maybe one parent works an extra day or two than might be preferred
• Significant sacrifices - living in much smaller house than possible otherwise, very limited and cheap holidays, very careful economising on socialising etc

Even those in the last category have decent incomes. Forking out £1.5k+ per month (and often much more than this) isn’t possible for most. However, for people who’ve managed to become mortgage free or live in property which requires a very small mortgage and who have 2 decent professional incomes and live frugally, it might be possible to pay the fees. Many people would prefer to go state and have a higher standard of living, especially if they can live somewhere with good state schools.

Private education is increasingly one of the most significant luxury items that are unaffordable to many. It’s a large amount every year and the period of commitment is often many many years. It’s not surprising it’s unaffordable to the vast majority, including those in very good incomes, especially if they are not prepared to sacrifice the other things those on good incomes normally see as more important - larger housing, holidays, leisure, pensions etc.

"A grammar system need not be a toxic 11 plus affair. It can be done through gentle teacher recommendation in consultation with parents, as it is done in much of Europe. It can be done through proper streaming. Learning Latin and Greek etc is important to some people. If nobody does it, there will be hardly any Classics courses left at uni. Thoughts/intellectual debate etc - it is all really important stuff in a Democracy especially in a Cancel Culture. A full on academic education needs to be available in the state sector too, for those who choose it for their kids."

No way, too blunt an instrument. Not sure your point about selective education but I have lived in France and was never aware this was the case, and some of the finest systems in the world in Scandinavia are not selective.

The way to do it is what they do in private schools today (bearing in mind not all privates are academically selective at all) which is a proven model of smaller class sizes, setting for core subjects and a personalised education system which treats each child as an individual, fostering their strengths and with the facilities to be able to offer a diverse curriculum such that if a child's strengths are in a non-core subject (like say, sport, or art) they can still be pursued. I have friends who went to top private schools who were absolutely not academic people but those schools supported them at finding what they WERE good at and making a success of it. This should be possible in any school but you'd need loads more money in the system to have smaller classes and better equipped schools like in many parts of Europe.

Purely academic selection is a really blunt instrument as people aren't just 'academic' or 'not academic'. Some people are really excellent at certain subjects, like say maths to the detriment of languages, or english to the detriment of sciences. Not to mention that at 11 many people, especially boys, aren't yet fully formed. One of my old pals could barely write his name at 11 but by 19 was off to do PPE at Oxford. In a grammar system he'd never have had that chance.

@WombatChocolate in my experience with kids in London private schools I would say I have never ever met anyone in the 'significant sacrifices' category. The only people in a normal-ish income bracket are the school teachers who send their kids to the schools with a massive discount.

I did say that even those in the last category have decent incomes. We are looking at people who can find £1.5k+ per month, and often more like £2k+.

People making significant sacrifices don’t tend to say much about it. Most schools will have people doing this though. You do t always see what’s going on behind the scenes.

At the London schools I know, there are parents who have good incomes but are up to their eyes in credit card debts. They worry their car might break down as finding an extra £1k will be difficult. There are people with good professional careers who have chosen to live in a 3 bed semi instead of a 4 bed detached house, so they have a small mortgage and can pay the fees. There are women particularly who might have chosen not to work or to only work 2 days who are now working 4 days or full time to pay the fees. People delay refurb projects and extensions they might like to cover the £2k per month.

Most people, especially at the more expensive schools and in London do have very substantial earnings and aren’t people who’ve sacrificed lifestyle to pay fees…but there are always some. And as you look at a wider range of schools, you’ll find more people making sacrifices. Often it’s because their child has SEN and they felt the private option was the only good option and worth making really major sacrifices for. Sometimes, certain second generation immigrant families will make substantial sacrifices because education is so highly valued. Not everyone is extremely wealthy, although unless there are substantial discounts, good salaries are certainly needed.

She said last week “I personally think the state sector is a fantastic sector, they did a great job with me”.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it’s nice that she was happy with her education. Personally though, I would prefer my children to leave school with decent qualifications. I wouldn’t see the state sector as having done a “great” job if an otherwise capable child leaves school with no qualifications.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/aug/28/fear-of-failure-giving-uk-children-lowest-happiness-levels-in-europe

Kids in the UK are unhappy because they are told from an early age that anyone can be academic and should be academic. It is a lie. All kids have talents and should be celebrated. Shoving kids into school from 4 with high academic expectations for all and compulsory GCSEs is not what many other countries do. There should be simple qualifications for all in Maths and English. That would be enough for many, coupled with really well funded apprenticeship schemes. Not everyone has to go to uni. It is a waste of time and money.

No government is ever going to spend as much on school kids in the state sector as the all bells and whistles London private schools. That is just unrealistic.

I’m not sure that it’s logical to say that the state and private sector are the same quality, but then argue that private schools are a “luxury”. With that logic, state schools are a “luxury” if they offer the same standard. Just because you have to pay for something doesn’t make it a luxury.

By the same logic, an elderly person paying privately for a hip replacement is paying for a “luxury” and should be subject to VAT. I suspect that VAT on private healthcare wouldn’t be as popular given that almost a quarter of adults use private healthcare.

Why would we subject education to a higher rate of tax than holidays? It’s purely because it’s a vote winner. Let’s not pretend it’s anything else. Holidays are a luxury and VAT on those would raise far more than VAT on school fees. It wouldn’t be popular though because it affects too many people.

There are quite a lot like that in our rural independent. Plenty of people driving cars older than 10years, camping on the Norfolk coast or maybe Brittany , living in smallish houses. They also have more than a third on bursaries some up to 110% so fees plus uniform and buses and also trips, so several of my dc friends live in local authority or housing association property. The dc honestly couldn’t care less what size of house people live in

Araminta1003 You asked why DS went to state primary whereas DD's both attended private throughout. DS had a complex speech disorder and was fortunate enough to attend a highly specialist Local Authority nursery and infant school providing intensive speech therapy. He then went onto an outstanding, inclusive and high performing primary school, which we were able to choose to be named on his EHCP. He has had an excellent primary schooling that money literally could not buy, with expertise and support that is not available in the private sector. We did what was right for each child and he has absolutely thrived.

DD's both intend to go to a state sixth form (one grammar, one sixth form college). I think they'll both have had enough of the 'cosy' nature of a private girls' school.

I work as a school improvement specialist so visit many schools. There are of course struggling state schools, but many with outstanding practice, especially around inclusion. There are also some dreadful private schools (more than you might think from looking at the glossy brochures) with very poor practice and very limited professional development for staff, and it is heart breaking to think that people might struggle financially to send their children to a school like this when they would often get a better education for free a hundred yards up the road.

“I work as a school improvement specialist so visit many schools. (…) There are also some dreadful private schools (more than you might think from looking at the glossy brochures) with very poor practice and very limited professional development for staff, and it is heart breaking to think that people might struggle financially to send their children to a school like this when they would often get a better education for free a hundred yards up the road.”

OK - so from your own personal experience now, state education can be excellent. Do you personally regret sending your DDs to private school? Or do you feel it was right for them at the time?

What I believe is that it is my inherent privilege which is enabling me to access the best that state education has to offer and the same applies to the NHS. Personally, I have never had an issue with the NHS either. I reckon the same may be the case for you? The issue is not about state vs private at all. It is about why some people get access to better public services than others.

Regarding poor performance amongst certain private schools, lack of safeguarding, marketing ploys etc - I agree there should be proper regulation. This is the only part of the proposed policy that I buy into - basically, use the VAT tax as a deterrent to save some people wasting their money on private school. However, that will only work if those people are given a proper state alternative especially for children who were removed because they failed to thrive in the state sector.