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.

The thing is OP, you obviously don’t prioritise education enough, because if you did, you’d scrimp and save and make the sacrifices necessary to afford it, like all those other parents who just work harder than you do.

I'm not sure if you're being snarky or are just plain thick.

@sherbsy - it is not an either/or.
There are plenty of us state school parents who do “state plus” that is to say we pay for lots of extracurricular, travel, enrichment etc and feel we are doing the same as private schools anyway. If you have social, cultural capital, a high level of education yourself you do not really need a private school to do all of that, unless you work 100 per cent and really need the extra childcare element at primary to do the extra curricular. So do you work full time? Even if you work full time but from home a couple of days a week, there are ways to fit in the enrichment. Find a really good state primary and then a sought after state secondary and you will be fine.

I've thought about this and what I think happens isn't that the school improves, but that the more engaged and educated families there are in the school then obviously the less disengaged students there are - but they have to go somewhere so surely it just moves the problem on. The problem nobody wants to mention is the number of families who couldn't care less about their kid's education, are terribly behaved and cause problems for teachers in the classroom.

Exactly. It’s an unfounded unrealistic argument. There are far too many parents who don’t give a shit, sadly. And far too many schools with little resource, poor staff motivation etc.

Engaged parents choose the state schools they want, one way or another.

*I'm not sure if you're being snarky or are just plain thick.
*
PP being sarcastic. Every post about private schools here now attract dozens of posters joining to post the same tedious snarks they used probably 100s of times before.

I agree with your original point and often wondered myself why school fees have raced so far ahead of income.

DD goes to a London indie, and we can afford it because she is an only child. Two fees would have been impossible.

At least in London, many schools are not even fancy or have great facilities. Many look worse than newer comprehensives.

Looking at annual financial reports of our school and several other similar ones, it seems to be that most of their revenue, 65% or so, is spent on staff (including pension and NI). They do have better staff/student ratio.

Another 8 to 10% goes to bursaries and scholarship.

Some 12%, sometime more is spent on "governance" (I have no idea what it involves though)

Some (including our school) also carrying a large pension deficits from old (now closed) final salary pension scheme and have to contribute for plugging the gap.

All considered, I don't think there is a lot of room for cost cutting, unless they are able to take in more students and degrade staff/teacher ratio. But then, many schools at least in central London can't expand easily either due to space constraint.

VAT maybe the final straw for many smaller schools here.

I feel there is a market for not-fancy, academics focused, cheaper private schools, like available in many other countries for parents like me, and yet there is no sign of them anywhere in London.

@Blessedbunny "Labour removing upward social mobility again. Nothing changes."

Grammar schools do absolutely nothing to facilitate upward social mobility and never have.

“Grammar schools do absolutely nothing to facilitate upward social mobility and never have.“

Not true, ask any of the many immigrant parents at my DC’s grammar schools. Most of their kids are going into higher level degrees and better paid jobs than their parents.

“I feel there is a market for not-fancy, academics focused, cheaper private schools, like available in many other countries for parents like me, and yet there is no sign of them anywhere in London.“

That would be grammar schools. Why should we have to pay for grammar schools if there is demand?

’Turned to slop’.

I can’t believe I’ve just read that. About an entire sector of teachers, children and families who work just as hard as you. Wow.

It’s partly because the expectations of facilities and equipment have increased in that time. Computer suites, iPads, more sports on offer, better quality theatres with all the tech involved, Mandarin classes etc. Schools have hiked up prices to compete with other private schools.

Sarcastic (obviously), and not actually directed at you.

The vast majority of people I know who send their kids to private school say they do so because they prioritise education and are willing to make sacrifices accordingly, as if that is all that were needed to afford these extortionate fees.

I quite agree with you that the fees have outpaced other increases and when you couple that with wage stagnation and other cost of living increases, a middle class job no longer buys you a middle class life, especially in London and the South East where property prices are insane.

The only way people can afford private education comfortably for 2 children in London now, even in professional jobs, is through (grand)parental handouts, whether through directly paying for the fees or providing a large property deposit or both.

I’ve had no parental help, earn over a quarter of a million pounds in the City, and cannot afford private education for my children. Which is crazy.

93% of kids in this country, no less.

Not true. My parents, parents in law and thousands of others are evidence they worked. Comprehensives are a disaster. Evidentially.

From earlier: Many intelligent working class kids went to grammar school (my parents and my husbands parents for example). They all went to uni too.
I went to a comprehensive school in the 80’s, no 6th form just local college. Utter pile of crap I’m afraid. And worse today I believe. I only did well because I was supported by my parents and relatively intelligent. Most kids at my school went into building, shops, admin etc.
From my experience I fully support grammars but they’d need to be more widespread than today. Obviously there are too few now resulting in being even more highly selective based on who can and who cannot afford tutoring etc.
If some of the children in my year at school (many from less supportive family backgrounds, to put it mildly) had been able to access a grammar school opportunity, there’s no doubt in my mind they’d have been more successful in life.

Yes, slop.

Among other problems, kids who go to your average state school face issues such as:

Overcrowded classrooms
Underfunding
Poor, disruptive behaviour from peers
Bullying
Lack of individual attention
Limited resources for advanced learners
Inadequate facilities
High teacher turnover
Insufficient support for SEN
Peer pressure against academic achievement
Limited subject choices
Outdated technology
Lack of extracurricular activities
Inconsistent teaching quality
Stress from frequent assessments
Large class sizes
Limited career guidance
Inadequate mental health support
Uneven distribution of resources across schools

...but don't forget...

Mixed-ability classrooms
Excessive screen time in classrooms
Overreliance on digital resources
Reduced face-to-face interaction due to technology
Classroom layouts that hinder traditional teaching methods
Decreased emphasis on handwriting skills
Shortened attention spans due to constant digital stimulation
Overuse of group work at the expense of individual learning
Lack of quiet spaces for focused study
Reduced physical activity during school hours
Overemphasis on project-based learning
Neglect of traditional subjects in favour of "21st-century skills"
Overuse of educational games and "edutainment"
Decreased emphasis on cursive writing

...and that dreaded fad where they sit smart and capable kids next to disruptive ones to help stop undermining the classroom.

The craziest thing is when some parents don't like what's offered, work overtime to avoid most of these problems (by getting their kids into grammars or independents) many parents respond by smearing them as being snobs or elitist!

I've no idea why some people hold so much regard for crap schooling.

I am just accepting the political reality here that grammars are not coming back.

OP, we were in a similar situation to you a few years back, albeit my private education was abroad. We both work jobs that traditionally would have meant private education was well within reach, but fees have become so ridiculous that ultimately decided we couldn't make it work.

I will say however that I don't recognise a lot of your characterisation of the state sector in your post above in the schools we've experienced - there is certainly more reliance and integration of tech in the classroom in some of the private schools my friends' children attend than in our own boy standard comp, which has a strong digital detox ethos.

I would also say that we've been very pleasantly surprised by said bog standard comp, which so many more affluent parents wrinkled up their noses and made sympathetic noises when they learned that's where my eldest was going. The enthusiasm of the teachers and their commitment to making the resources they have do the best possible job is seriously impressive and they take an incredibly creative approach to nurturing talent, particularly in the performing arts, and creating extension opportunities right across the curriculum.

And of course we are in the fortunate position to be able to provide our kids with lots of extension and experiences outside school - in addition to what is provided in school which, while it didn't match some of the private schools we looked at was way more than we were expecting. The downside of a lot of the extension stuff is sorting the logistics ourselves, but it's really fine and our child is confident and thriving in a way I didn't necessarily expect given the horror stories I'd heard.

Basically be they own the schools

Other than the handful of new ones founded since the Blair years, these are not state schools allowed to have a faith character. They are church schools operating in concert with the state.

I'm also loving the idea that private education is some kind of protective against bullying.

I never said it didn't happen.

You get a very different reaction when you're handing them thousands of pounds a month.

The government isn’t removing charitable status

That education in schools (and universities and preschools) was entire exempt from VAT on fees is a separate issue, and part of EU tax law, rooted in their principle that there should be no taxation on education.

As we are no longer in the EU and can change UK sales tax however we want, this government campaigned - and won - on the abolition of that principle.

There has been no change to charitable status, and none is proposed

New bursaries might be a little harder to find in the short term if the funds in the bursary pot are currently needed to support pupils in the school whose families cannot afford the VAT increase. And even when that has settled, there may be fewer, as the same bursary pot will have to defray higher fees

Oh please. At this point in the funding model they're basically state-sponsored discrimination factories, where the state leases buildings while wearing a straitjacket.

The worst decision made when the Education Act was passed was not to call the churches' bluff and/or delay the Act until there was a clear postwar political settlement.

80 years later with a vastly different demographic we are still seeing the impacts.

The trouble is, the parents of the bullies are doing likewise.

Certainly in my experience, the incentive was for bullying to be brushed under the carpet - especially if the bullies were good performers in one way or another, or their parents particularly good contributors.

I think you’ll find the bully’s parents are also handing them thousands of pounds a month too.