2025 Private School Costs (just a rant)

[sherbsy]

Just a rant ladies as I wanted to get something off my chest...

My DH and I were lucky enough to go to private schools as kids. These schools weren't exactly posh, they were just former grammar schools (i.e. academic student factories) that converted in the 70s to private schools because the Labour government at the time told them to.

I know it's a privilege to go, there's a choice involved, a compromise etc. Neither of us ever went on holiday as kids or had many luxuries and our parents endured a lot to be able to afford it. I'm grateful for all they did and I wanted to do the same for my children.

But despite having good jobs...we just can't.

My rant is just at the excessive cost of it all in 2024. We both earn well and it's still beyond our means. With VAT being added in January, I'm not even sure it's worth it anymore.

When I left in 2000, it cost our parents ~£6,500 for a year. Inflation adjusted, that's about £12,000 in today's money. By no means cheap but both the schools we went to are now charging ~£22,000 per child, per year. That's before you factor in uniform, lunches, trips, exam costs etc.

Finding £44,000+ after tax every year with today's marginal tax rates, mortgage costs, food costs, energy costs etc just isn't possible for us...and I'd surprised many people can find it.

I know it's a middle-class rant, I know there's privilege involved but can anyone else empathise with us? It just feels like the Labour government have twice pulled the ladder away from capable kids (once in the 70s and now in 2024), offering it only to the rich ones.

OK fair enough.

It may not be a statistical quirk at all - the distribution of private schools is incredibly uneven geographically. There are large swathes of the country with half or lower the average proportion of independent school pupils.

The small amount of army folk I know I know none of them went to private school thankfully I'm quite healthy and barely ever see doctors it's getting away from the point here though which is private school has only ever been for wealthy people and if you cannot afford it than you are no different to the other 93% of the population. It's not a right it's a luxury no different to a Ferrari if you can afford it good for you if not just accept you are not rich.

This imo is dodgy because the state has a genuine obligation to meet your child's needs. They just choose to look at the current offering and call it adequate...when anyone could see it's clearly not.

Very few attend boarding schools and many of close who do are overseas students. Over 90% of UK pupils at PS are at day schools.

Pupils aren’t clustered in wealthy areas. Often those areas are the ones with outstanding state schools so no need for PS.

There will also be a lot of people who were PS educated that will never mention it to you. I doubt any of my neighbours know where I went to school nor indeed would most people at work. It is literally never discussed.

You may not think so but it really is a remarkable statistical quirk to have never known anyone who went to PS unless of course you only know about half a dozen people!

I've lived in the same town for a long time there is no private school anywhere near here I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty believing me tbh. I doubt I'm the only one.

You appear to miss the point that people put different value on things.

I see education as an investment. If I spend 250k on school fees I’d be pretty confident that the additional lifetime earnings of my DS will be far more than that vs what they would have achieved with a lesser education. Spending the money on buying them a flat for example would be a false economy.

Others have a different view and that’s fine.

I might pay 50k for a car but think that 100k+ is a waste as the difference between a 50k car and a 100k one doesn’t warrant double the price. Others will be confident that the 100k vehicle is far better value.

Spend where you perceive the value lies and don’t worry about what others spend their money on.

Fair enough. But not quite the equality/equity choice then - is what I was alluding to.

The taxes we all pay are clearly not enough or are mismanaged/poorly distributed as the quality of state education - as described by both teachers in the system and parents using the system - leaves a lot to desire. Those with funds to support out of school will achieve their potential most likely. Others less likely to

Spare a thought for those with no choice but to use the state offering, no money spare for fancy extracurricular, uni fees, deposit etc.
Maybe the funding would go a longer way if those who could afford it stumped up more for their schools.....

Anyway, the 6500 new teachers are on their way to save us

If you can comfortably afford it good for you. If it's a stretch and you have to scrimp and save and eat shitter food and not go on holiday to afford it then please do not constantly moan and complain like some people do on this site!

Personally I think 250k would be better spent on buying them a house but that's just my opinion

Every case will vary and of course it’s impossible to know how things would have turned out had schooling being different.

All I can say is that the people I know who attended the academically selective PS alongside me earn way more on average than those who didn’t.

How much of that is down to the school and how much to home life is difficult to quantify although as I said earlier one of my best friends who attended PS with me came from a background of virtually no home support and they turned out to be spectacularly successful.

My additional lifetime earnings when I compare to other kids who were of similar ability to me but had less educational opportunities would dwarf a 250k house deposit.

There are of course exceptions but all the ones I know well will have benefitted by way more than 250k in term of earnings.

@KatieL5 I don't think it's as straightforward as - do lifetime earnings exceed 250k over what they would otherwise. Because getting on the housing ladder earlier massively benefits you, especially if you choose a property/location well and see a lot of house price growth. That can end up being a lot more than 250k. Especially if you factor in not losing money on rent.

My parents gave me both a large house deposit and private education - lucky me! - and, while I do think my lifetime earnings are higher as a result of private school, I think the house deposit has made far more impact

Also - given the way tax rates work, it takes a lot to save 250k in post tax income. The people I know who went to private school earn well, myself included, but more in the 60-150k type range

Porsche is conspicuous consumption here as we don't have German roads to drive it properly. Education is never ever "consumption" in any meaningful sense.

It's OK you are happy about having been robbed of your earnings and economic potential, but it's equally OK for other people to be less pliant.

I get what you're saying OP

At the private convent school I went to in the 1980s a lot of the pupils' parents had blue collar jobs.

People in similar jobs today would definitely not be able to afford school fees.

The ISC Census shows the opposite - private schools and private school pupils aren't equally distributed, both private schools and their pupils are largely correlated with wealthier areas.

Academically selected? So those children were already naturally very clever im not surprised they all did so well.

However when talking about private schools that aren't academically selective there is no guarantee that just because you blew a lot of money at the school that your child will get a brilliant job. In fact I've heard enough stories from people in their late twenties with very good jobs who are still stuck wasting money on rent and can't afford a mortgage.

If I had the money I'd be giving them a house deposit not private school.

Glad someone agrees. I think it's very delusional to try and argue private schools and their pupils aren't correlated with wealthy areas when the cost for 2 kids is 44k that's a lot more than most people earn in a year haha

We have thought long and hard about private school Vs house deposits as that's the bracket we are in and, as well as the points I have already made, the other thing I feel is that it's much less risky.

If we give our children large sums for house deposits later on, we will obviously get to choose the timing of that and will only do so when we are reasonably certain they are in a position to be responsible with it.

If we go for private school, it might turn out to be a great return on investment but it might well not - we both know plenty of people on quite average salaries following private education. Often working in low paying sectors like museums or publishing or the charity sector.

I only have experience of extremely selective private schools so am not really in a position to comment on the value of non-selective private education.

I think my career earnings are probably around £2m more than others I know who were of a similar ability at the state primary I attended. I very much doubt I’d have had anything like the same career without the development that private school gave me.

Even after tax that is a great investment.

Another factor to consider is family structure. We were older parents with 1 DS. He will be the sole beneficiary of our estate and will likely inherit at a younger age than many children. That is a far greater financial protection for him than a family with say 3 children who are only 25 years younger than their parents.

I bet you also have peers from private school who earn a lot less though. I went to a very selective private school which was at that stage top 10 in the country and I would say most of my peers earn good salaries but in the 60-150k range. Lifetime post tax, that's not an incredible return on investment. And as I said before a fair few earn pretty average salaries in museums, academia, charity sector etc

With the house deposit my parents gave me, choosing a house very wisely has boosted my lifetime assets far more than my salary - and my salary isn't low.

Basically for me it's a risk calculation - some people will get a return on investment from private education, as you did - but everyone will benefit from somewhere secure to live

My DS is at a small non-selective private school. Lots of children from armed forces so not all rich.

As a school, they genuinely seem to try their best for each individual child. Everyone passes GCSE maths & English, 100% every year, which means they move heaven and earth to support the weaker DCs. It's part of the reason I like them so much. They are not only interested in those getting top grades.

And they build confidence, working hard to support those who have been bullied at other schools, or those who have arrived dreading sport. The teaching is generally good, the pastoral care is superb.

Another factor to consider is family structure. We were older parents with 1 DS. He will be the sole beneficiary of our estate and will likely inherit at a younger age than many children. That is a far greater financial protection for him than a family with say 3 children who are only 25 years younger than their parents.

But there are other benefits to having younger parents & siblings vs just how much you inherit & when…

Of course there are but the point was made in response to suggestions of providing a lump sum for your children to buy their first property.

We’ll be retired around the time DS starts senior school which I know is not typical for most families but does mean that providing for him financially is a lot easier for us.

We had 6 fig help onto the ladder and that has made a big difference, I just wish I was older so could have bought in the early 00s!