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.

I think you're going to have to explain a little more how where she went to school in a different country with a different political, economic and education system affects the validity of her (and her co-authors') findings about the benefits (or otherwise) of grammar school education in England in recent times.

@sherbsy "Of course it's not true. Grammar's are the golden ticket to smart kids from poor backgrounds. The opportunity they provide is absolutely fantastic”

I work in a state school down the road from a grammar. We have 44% of students on free school meals. The grammar has 2%. It is simply not true that grammars are a “golden ticket”. The kids that go are tutored to an inch of their life, and almost exclusively from well off middle class backgrounds. It is not a level playing field.

Not quite - capable kids growing up in a privileged home (as yours must be since you are able to afford private school but didnt) will do very well as they will be well supported outside the classroom.

The education received by equally capable kids in less privileged home situations, environment and support will differ.

I wonder if those who can afford private school but use state could contribute more directly to the education budget to support employing more TAs, pastoral support etc? You know - broadest shoulders and all. General taxation would likely get diluted/not ringfenced for education.

I think a lot of parents in this situation donate directly to their own school/s. Which is understandable (and tbh we do it ourselves) BUT it further entrenches the big differences between state schools.

State school admissions reform would make some difference but tbh still wouldn't make enough of a difference in the most deprived areas. The whole funding settlement needs to be looked at quite differently.

I think the issue for many, particularly those who attended PS themselves, is the relative cost now compared to when they went to school themselves.

My DF was a senior medic from a poor background so no wider family support, inheritance or anything like that at all. He funded a big house in a desirable area, private school for 3 children and retired in his early 50’s. My DM never worked. Today you’d need both parents to be in similar roles to fund that same path through life.

We found some old invoices from when we went to PS and even accounting for inflation the cost for 3 of us to attend around 35 years ago is about the same as one child attending at today’s prices.

It is no surprise that the majority of parents at our PS who are using income rather than family wealth or support to pay the fees have 1 child.

Look at housing though & what one salary could buy you decades ago

Hmm my parents never knew anyone who went to private school when they were younger, I'm sorry but I do not buy this argument because it would imply that a lot more children went to private school back in the day then do now. Although if anyone had statistics on this I'd be interested to see them.

As far as I'm aware it's always been a thing for wealthy people and anyone bemoaning they can't afford it just sounds to me no different than moaning that you cannot afford a Porsche. Or a house with a swimming pool. I mean come on there's people starving out there.
It's always been a very small percentage of the population who could afford these things.

My parents had worse jobs than me but a bigger house when they were my age but I don't have this entitled attitude like some wannabe PS parents on this site.

I went to a grammar in the 90s and it feels like it was very different to what you describe now - or at least it wasn't quite as extreme.

When anyone on the VAT threads says they will use grammar school, people laugh it off by saying that you can't "buy" a grammar school place - which is right, but realistically if they're tutoring and preparing them then they are much more likely to get into grammar.

The economic comparison is fact not opinion. It is much the same as housing. If you have the same career as your parents you will end up only being able to afford a smaller house than they did due to the change in prices vs income ratio.

Private schools have never been just for the wealthy. When I attended there were pupils on assisted places scheme which Labour subsequently abolished. My best friend at school lived above a pub in a single parent household.

I think the difference between then and now is the quality of state education. Few people even considered PS until 11 back in the 80’s and 90’s whereas now pre-prep and prep schools are much more popular.

Even at today’s prices well over 20% of households could afford PS. A generation ago that figure was much higher.

If state schools were uniformly good then PS demand would drop off dramatically. As it is the cost of moving to a decent catchment area is probably not much different to funding PS fees if you have 1 child.

The ISC Census only goes back to 1990, but shows absolute numbers up by about 80,000 - but it's not a great metric as it only looks at member schools. However looking at just those figures, the population has grown slightly more quickly than the private school population.

I suspect this feeling is driven more by quite a big change in who is wealthy enough to afford private school - whereas in 1981 a day school place would cost £4100 (2021 prices), in 2021 the average was £15,600 (Civitas). At the same time there have been huge changes in the distribution of wealth and income, and a big shift in where different jobs and professions sit on the overall income scale.

More from Civitas:

Office for National Statistics data on gross annual pay by age shows that for 40–49-year-olds at the 90th income percentile, private school has become roughly twice as expensive in one generation.

In 1997 (roughly when today’s parents were at school), 40–49-year-olds at the 90th percentile earnt an average of £32,296 per year (in 1997 pounds) with average secondary day school fees of £4,182. This means fees were 12.9 per cent of earnings or 1/8th (1/7.75).

In 2022, 40–49-year-olds at the 90th percentile earnt on average £64,776.40 per year with average secondary day school fees of £16,654. This means fees were 25.7 per cent or gross income or 1/4th (1/4.14).

So I think there might be a couple of factors:

• Income distribution within the top 10% has changed a lot and there is a much bigger gap between, say, the 90th and 95th centiles than in the past.
• The sort of jobs that could have afforded private school on one (or even two) incomes in the past can no longer do so.
• The class structure has changed significantly with a much larger middle class than in the past, and people may feel their expectations of MC life are not being met.
• The independent sector is currently benefiting from a lot of that expectation as people will look for other ways to meet those aspirations - grandparents helping with fees, second mortgages being taken out, inheritances paying for fees that would have been achievable from income than in the past.

The bullets are speculation on my part - it feels like quite a complicated picture.

If it's fact show me some actual statistics on what percentage of children were in private school 50 years ago. I know it's only 7% now, was it a lot more back in the day?
Like I said my parents, aunts and uncles did not know a single person who went to private school. It is and always has been a small minority of people who can afford private school.

Saying "fewer people considered private school back in the 80s" is your opinion and just sounds like a justification for why it's always only been around 7% of students in private school.

It just sounds very entitled to be moaning you can't afford private school when there are people out there who cannot afford to pay their rent. Like come on private school is a luxury like sports cars and Gucci if you can't afford it just accept it. Not everyone can be rich.

And yes I massively missed housing costs off what's driving a big shift in eg 90th centile affordability. A much greater proportion of income goes on housing than in the past, leaving less disposable income even if fees hadn't trebled.

Around 1970 is when a lot of things changed.

My parents knew loads of families whose kids went to grammars that were subsequently abolished. Plenty of parents chose to pay for their children's education afterwards as a lot of those areas were left with lackluster secondary provisions.

I expect if we could have those numbers it would tell quite an interesting story.

That's interesting but I stand by what I said the vast majority of people back in the day couldn't afford private school and just had to accept that now that majority is even larger and includes "almost rich" people who just about can't afford it but feel entitled to it and write up these threads.

Times change just accept you are now included in the majority of people who couldn't afford it.
Funnily enough you somehow see more threads about private school than you do about houses and having a roof over your head is much more important! I don't get it!

I‘m not moaning about affordability. I’m fortunate to be very well paid so can fund PS.

With 1 in 14 children by privately educated it is very much a statistical quirk if nobody in your extended family even knew of a single child who attended such a school. In some cities such as Edinburgh the figure is nearer 25%.

It really isn’t quite as elitist as you make out although the VAT policy will of course make it the most elitist it has ever been.

Well, bluntly, no. We already pay taxes.

We chose not to use private school so we could put the money towards top level extra curricular music.

DD gets nothing provided for her SEN from the state, so I'm also having to pay for private psychiatrist appointments, fund the ipads and other tech she needs and top up with tutoring where needed.

Any extra will be going towards paying upfront uni fees, and then my pension.

A lot more people could afford it even at today’s prices than you may think. Over half of even the highest earning households still use state schools.

People have different priorities which is of course absolutely fine and very much a matter of personal choice.

You already pay taxes? Bugger I didn't realise all PS parents hadn't been paying income tax all this time.

Best leave it to someone else to pay though eh?

44k in school fees is 3660 a month which can be a single person’s entire salary or most of a family’s. When people talk about the sacrifices people make for private school they mean many people can only afford it (esp in London) by delaying buying a house & renting apartments or even house sharing.

Those people that "could" afford it, if they chose to do it it would probably involve the Mumsnet "saving and scrimping eating crappy food and foregoing any holidays".

Well done for those people that could but chose not to for making a good financial decision.

I never knew anyone privately educated growing up and I still don't. 1 in 14 is irrelevant because a lot of those will be at boarding school or will live together in very wealthy areas. It's not a statistical quirk to have not met one 😂

I’m a private school parent with a child with severe adhd. I do everything you do, plus schoolfees, plus from 2025 I’ll be paying even more tax to a state system that’s incapable of educating my child. I view it as charity but it does annoy me that I need to donate this charity to people who earn more than me in millionaire state catchments.

I'm not disagreeing with you - private school has long been for a small minority. It's mostly the composition of the minority and/or how the minority is funding it that has shifted.

Of course PS parents are (I am massively against the VAT - I'd be supported of a rebate scheme to allow more parents to choose PS and top up).

In terms of contributing more to state education, there are a lot of things governments choose to spend money on that shouldn't be a priority in my mind.

While they all decide to fritter millions/billions away on those, I don't feel particularly as if I want to donate more for someone else to decide how to spend.

I'll focus it on my own child. That way I am in control and am also freeing up resources for those who don't have that ability.

I know of one secondary in London (not DCs) that has over 200 children who require laptops... and only 30 devices available.

You probably do you just don’t realise it. Eg Most UK educated doctors (almost all of them over 25) are privately educated. Similarly second+ gen army folk.