Do you feel you are *entitled* to the "best" school for your children?

[UnquietDad]

If so, why?

and just a few other questions/points.

Define "best"

and

Does this apply also to people up the road?

and

Does this apply also to people in different social classes?

i.e if you're entitled to the "best" school why isn't everyone else?

Is there a middle-class sense of "entitlement" to the "best schools" in this country?
Is the problem that we have such a variation in standards of schools across a supposedly comprehensive system?
Is it people playing the system, moving out of catchment, "getting faith" etc, and making themselves part of the problem and not part of the solution?
Or is the issue simply one of being too obsessed by the schools that do well in the league tables and/or have a nice uniform?

(It's a quiet Saturday... Walks away whistling, hands in pockets... Gas Mark 6, set to simmer. I'll be back...)

UQD - If you hadn't traded up, your "profit on the sale" would be equity in your house as would the sum total of all the associated costs (stamp duty, moving costs, estate agency fees etc). If you had your old mortgage and a big chunk of equity in your house, meeting school fees might begin to look possible. I know you needed an extra bedroom so it's academic but some people trade up for a bigger garden - nice to have but not essential - spending £50,000 in costs and then some on some new carpets and some landscaping. They then complain they can't afford the fees at the independent high school for 7 years (£70,000) for their only child. I think there is a choice in there somewhere.

There is a big difference between moving house as a one-off project and committing yourself to fees (which could go up) over 7 or 12 years.

"To end up with £22k as disposable income you need to earn around £33k (to pay all the tax and NI)"

To clarify, you need to have £33K a year spare available which you wouldn't be using for anything else.

This is more than most people's entire salaries - certainly more than the entire salary of most public sector workers. And hugely more than most people in creative industries.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest this is sitcom territory for most people.

I sat and worked it out that it wasn't costing hugely more to send ds to prep than it would have been to shell out for childminders from when I left home in the morning to when I got in at night. I would also have had to pay the childminder for the holidays when ds would have been with me as I'm a teacher.

I dropped him at school for breakfast at 0745, picked him up at 1850, and he had had three square meals, his prep was all done, and he was occupied and happy in the time between supper being over and prep starting.

This cost approx £10,000 per year. I had to put £800 per month away every month, and sometimes more if I was paying for uniform. It was worth every penny.

As an old girl of my private girl's school I am entitled to a bursary for my DC's at Wells Cathedral School. Mum told me this in great excitement a few months back. But apart from the fact that I'm not sure it would include all 3 DCs, I couldn't afford the travel costs atm (and I work so couldn't drive them) not to mention the uniform. And yes, I might be able to 'manage my money' to afford those things, but never ever in my wildest dreams could I afford the fees. It's simply out of the question - as it is for most people I know.

Well to call it sitcom territory implies that someone somewhere will find it amusing.

I can't imagine anyone finding it funny other than those with first rate local schools - and even then it would be laughter borne out of schadenfreude.

I don't know where you get 7 or 12 years from either - it's 3-18 round my way - so it's a 15 year commitment.

Oh and why on earth are engineers being cited as being wealthy? They are notoriously poorly paid for their skill levels ...

quattro - I was using it in the way people use "comedy prices" for houses.

I was working on the basis of age 11 to age 18, or age 6 to age 18. I think some people use state primary and then switch to private secondary, so 7 will be quite common.

I don't know about engineers either. An engineering degree was mentioned earlier as something which one "should" have in order to get a "good" job and send one's children to private school. (This drove me to an unnecessarily ad hominem comment which has now been deleted.)

That's why moving houses into a "first rate" catchment area is a much more sensible move - say you have to pay an extra £250k-£300k to get into the area but at least you get to keep the dosh afterwards

UQD - Sons' school fees are more than 75% of our household net income.

Which brings us back on track with my OP

Quattrocento on Mon 28-Apr-08 11:16:50
UQD and Platypus

"The average cost of a dayschool is around £11k a year. Two children means £22k. To end up with £22k as disposable income you need to earn around £33k (to pay all the tax and NI). "

Which in dh's profession is just over what a lucky few might end up with after a Russell group degree, 25 years in the profession and 15 years of managerial responsibilities. It is not the case that all "educated" jobs are well paid.

Still, I don't worry about having to send dc's to a state school. As Xenia points out, you can do a lot for your children as a parent.

What I do worry about is that there are still state schools where the education is so poor that it leaves the majority of its pupils at a hopeless disadvantage.

This isn't me being altruistic. It is recognising that as long as there are children growing up in poverty, this leaves all our children at greater risk:
risk of crime, risk of disease, risk of public disorder.

I make no secret of the fact my children go privately, the local (and only choice) secondary school here is appalling, it has serious behaviour problems, drugs problems and awful results. The new headteacher who was going to turn it around lasted less than one year. I do not think my children would be of benefit to the school, they would just throw their lot in with the majority and misbehave and do little work. Fortunately house prices here are relatively cheap for this region (presumably not unrelated to the fact the school is cr**) so we do have more disposable income for school fees.
If we moved 15-20 miles to the north and west of the city, where we would double(or even triple) our mortgage, we then would have access to some very good state schools, this of course would be totally acceptable for many socialists, but it is just a different way of choosing to spend your money.
Certainly not acceptable provision for those who don't have the choice to do either.
I certainly don't buy the idea that any reasonably bright child will do ok in the state system,
take my DH, his family moved house 2 weeks before the 11+ from a non selective authority to one running the 11+. He failed it, went to local sink secondary modern. He left after five years (some years having 8+ teachers in single subject as it was the students' culture to try and break new teachers) with about 3 CSE's, none at grade 1. O levels weren't even offered. He left, worked as a veg chopper and worked his way up to trainee/assistant chef. His chef said to him at that point "You are a very bright lad, why are you doing this?"
DH went to careers advisor and said he wanted to go to university - careers advisor laughed in his face. He did a couple of O levels at night school and passed them. He then went and begged, and fought the local FE college to take him on to do A levels, even though he had insufficient O levels at that point to be offered a place - he had to agree he would leave at Christmas if he wasn't up to scratch. He got AAB in three sciences and a place to read Medicine at University (despite still not having a MFL, they merely asked he study a language whilst at Uni). 20+ years on he has a BSC, MMedSci, PhD, PGCE (HE), in addition to his medical degree - my reason for mentioning those is that he clearly is a very clever man, but was totally failed by the state school system . He says many of his classmates were equally as bright, but sadly none of them ever managed to shake off the disadvantage they had from their schooling. One died in an mines accident, one is currently unemployed and so forth.
or take my socialist pal with bright child sends his lad to local school on a point of principle (much better state school only another 1/2 mile away. Child ends up with a btec or something in performing music, and sod all else. Can't get a job, can't go to uni. He didn't rise above the system either.

"It is recognising that as long as there are children growing up in poverty, this leaves all our children at greater risk:
risk of crime, risk of disease, risk of public disorder"

Agree cory. It's not altruism to care about other people's children, it's a realisation that we all inhabit the same crowded little island.

You must have a tiny mortgage, swedes, or none at all !

scaryteacher on Mon 28-Apr-08 11:48:22
"I sat and worked it out that it wasn't costing hugely more to send ds to prep than it would have been to shell out for childminders from when I left home in the morning to when I got in at night. I would also have had to pay the childminder for the holidays when ds would have been with me as I'm a teacher."

Gosh, they must have expensive childminders round your way!

(And round here, you can do a contract that they don't charge for holidays.)

UQD - Yes, no mortgage.

How old are you UQD? I ask because generally people get higher up in their jobs and pay more of their mortgages off so become wealthier with age ...

38... had a mortgage for 10 years but had to re-mortgage for new house so basically started again from scratch.

You can be a private school tart though. I put my dd in one private school for kindergarten, another for pre-prep and yet another for prep. The first 2 were imo more suited to a very young child, the third is selective academically. The first 2 were much cheaper than the prep she is now at.

Childminders in my village in Cornwall were like hens teeth, and yes, they could set pretty much what rate they chose and had waiting lists, so prep was the easiest option; especially as my mum lived in the same town as the prep and could pick him up if I couldn't get there. They also charged for holidays.

What is the going rate for childminders?

I'm 44. I bought my first flat in London when I was 22. My DP is 50 and bought his first house when he was 24. We became mortgage free in 2006 after more than twenty years being slaves to mortgage debt.

Cory - you said that the fees were hard to find because "(£33k) in dh's profession is just over what a lucky few might end up with after a Russell group degree, 25 years in the profession and 15 years of managerial responsibilities. It is not the case that all "educated" jobs are well paid."

I agree with that point - pretty well all public sector work other than medicine or very senior roles are not likely to find it affordable on one salary ...

But you know two relatively average salaries could find it affordable. Just about.

Also there were no parental windfalls or inheritances involved in becoming mortgage free - it was 20 odd years of chipping away from hard earned income.

of course, all this reference to teachers, engineers, etc....

mr average (certainly where i come from) left school with nothing above gcse if that, and works in a distribution centre earning £15k a year.

DH is a manager in a distribution centre and doesn't take home the fees for our 3 school age boys!

average wages include bankers and ft cats- its a well known sociological fact that most people are well below the average wage.

sorry for lack of capitals etc- ds4 bf.

The head of my dd's prep told me that over 50% of fee-paying parents countrywide work in the finance sector. The schools are concerned about the effects that the credit crunch may have on those type of jobs and therefore their customer base.