Alternative Option to State & Private School

[thinkingdeeplyaboutedcuation]

I'm a school leader & parent who thinks a lot about primary education.

At the moment, we can either choose to send our children to state or private schools (or home educate of course!) but more and more parents are citing the following issues -

State:
Widespread poor behaviour and unmet needs
Large classes
Able children not receiving attention/challenge
Restrictive out-of-date curriculum

Private:
Completely unaffordable for most parents, especially with changes to VAT

I've been thinking a lot about whether there would be interest in a 'middle-ground' fee paying school.

What this would include:

• Small classes
• Family feel, close relationship with parents
• High expectations and 11+ exam prep
• Children & parents who generally value education (in my experience, therefore less behaviour issues)
• A more free curriculum, but still academically rigorous

What it wouldn't include to keep the costs down:

• Huge grounds/ extensive facilities
• Specialist teaching in art, music, drama, sport etc

My question is - would there be enough of a draw for parents to still pay for a school like this? For context, I'm based in the South East where fees are around £8,000 a term. I recon this would be around £3,500 a term.

I apologise in advance for the very sweeping generalisations about schools - I accept it is far more nuanced than this and there are some FANTASTIC state options and not so great privates, but am trying to keep it simple and gauge interest/ thoughts. Especially interested in hearing from any parents who have had to move their children due to fees.

Thanks in advance to anyone who comments!

Yes I know a family who emigrated and are putting all 3 children through private school. It costs the same for all 3 as it would for 1 child here!
But they’ve said the funding model in Australia basically means the money follows the child so the private schools are given grants by the state to educate the children. Whereas here if a child goes private they lose state funding

all fo this - though my children are younger. i’ve been googling for something like this.

PP who suggests if you can afford 12k a year you can afford 20k is so bizarrely wrong - i don’t get how they can think 8k is no biggie

Per pupil funding for state schools.

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics/2024-25#dataBlock-e1aa4010-81d0-4931-ae9b-32c8e24a85dd-tables

Even with a narrower curriculum offer and a more restricted pupil population (it is unclear how you would do this) you are going to need to get close to these levels of state funding. It is more than you may expect.

Interesting. I taught for a while at a school similar to what you're proposing. Fees were £2,500 a term and facilities minimal - worse than most state schools I've known. Old fashioned staff with old fashioned attitudes and completely clueless about SEN or anything unusual or challenging. Behaviour was not particularly better than average-good state options.

Honestly the ONLY thing it had going for it was the small class sizes, and I suspect if the parents had any idea what actually went on behind the scenes, in terms of the penny pinching at every level of provision, they would have thought again about paying the fees.

I guess the experience has left me skeptical of attempts to present a quality private school "front" while not walking the walk with the actual investment needed to deliver what counts.

In terms of parental perception, the one item I'd query on your list is specialist teaching in sport, music and drama. This is widely perceived as a huge draw for private schools. Much of it doesn't actually cost any more (because the specialist teachers are part of what's bugeted for in having one teacher per class at any particular time. It's not like the school has a higher teacher-student ratio because of them). The parts that are really costly, like a range of 1:1 music lesson options or foreign skiing trips, are paid as optional extras by the parents on top of the fees anyway.

Specialist music and art teachers in a primary school would be an additional cost as pupils tend to be taught by one class teacher for the most part. If you’re working on one teacher per form one of them can’t be the ‘music’ teacher for the whole school.

@thinkingdeeplyaboutedcuation as some pp's have alluded, the sector you're referring to already exists internationally, and is creeping into the UK. The education press refer to it as the "No Frills" private education sector. See here: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/100-a-week-no-frills-private-school-planned-for-london/

Issues I can see are:

1. Many people fundamentally believe you "get what you pay for"
2. If they have to keep costs down, how would they compete for the best staff in a difficult job sector?
3. For most sensible people in your target market it would be a second best option to a good or outstanding state school with a critical mass of bright kids and supportive parents.
4. When new private schools open, they often fill first with children who are struggling at other schools, so need to work hard to establish a good reputation.

p.s. in line with my points above, the Durham school mentioned in the Schools Week article was promising a traditional Grammar School education, but opened with only 3 teachers.

When new Government-funded free-schools open, they get additional "diseconomy funding" for a few years to get them over the start-up costs of hiring sufficient teachers to cover core national curriculum subjects when student numbers are low. It's fantastic for the starting year-group because they get a disproportionately high teacher-student ratio for the first few years. No frills private schools may not be able to match that experience. @thinkingdeeplyaboutedcuation as a school leader yourself, you might understand the negative impact of this diseconomy more than others. No new school is 100% full when it opens.

You could potentially consider a job at a new free school, to help you understand the process of starting a new school. My children went to one, and many of the earliest students were children of teachers who understood the opportunity for concentrated attention.

@Geronimode
Thanks for your response - I did think there must be a market out there! Where are you based if you don't mind me asking?

I’m a private school parent. I chose my DC’s school in part because of the excellent sport and music facilities as I think these things matter.

Tiny village schools? In Kent for example

I think they used to exist more than they do now.

I can think of two ex grammar schools (that were ex grammar when I was at school) who ran to a similar model. It was pretty much how they’d operated as state grammar schools. Classes of 19-24 type size. Academically selective. Drama club run after school in the school hall with teachers from the English department. Same approach for choirs and orchestra. Sport in a bog standard sports hall, netball / hockey. The really fancy sports equipment was the trampoline.

No minibuses, no theatre, no auditorium, no rowing. No pool.

Most travelled to school by train. Wrap around care consisted of the option of doing homework in the library with one librarian supervising the whole thing.

They've both since ‘upgraded’ and are now what I’d call fancy pants private.

I wonder what income brackets are like. Is there a common budget that can afford cheaper private but not posh private - or are people generally high disposable income / no significant disposable income.

My local no frills prep is £3800 to £4600 a term. No pool and no sports hall. Not much of anything except classrooms. Certainly doesn’t punch that high academically either. In my LA we have 13 grammars. We also have an “independent grammar” which isn’t remotely like the grammars! It’s £7/8000 a term. I’d not touch it with a barge pole.

That's not how school staffing works. All schools have more teachers employed that the number strictly necessary to have one covering every class at any time. They have PPA time. Some have senior mangement roles or other non-teaching duties in conjunction with teaching part of the time. Some have job shares. Some get sick or take kids on excursions off site and need cover...

A school with specialist teachers simply use them to cover some of the contact hours that would otherwise require employing more general teachers. As long as all teachers both general and specialist are teaching as many contact hours as they would otherwise be, it makes no financial difference.

Most people value individual subject teachers at private schools - it’s what sets them apart from state schools. If the op thinks people will pay solely for smaller classes, she would not get my money.

New schools don't have that luxury. They usually start with say Reception or Year 7 and add a new class each year, so it can be incredibly small to begin with. The primary school I visited which was going to be opening that year was starting off with the head, the teacher, a receptionist and a caretaker. Funnily enough, despite offering a private school ethos, it wasn't popular with parents. It ended up attracting kids who hadn't been given a place at their preferred school.

PPA time is frequently covered by HLTAs. Schools can’t afford to have teachers to cover. Teachers on trips go with their classes plus TAs and parents.

SLT or Sencos are going to be doing SLT and Senco tasks. There really isn’t as much flex as you seem to think in most school’s staffing structures.

Just noticed that someone recommended Oakhill in Hounslow as a cheaper private alternative. This school closed down last October.

A school like that already exists round us. It is smaller a bit cheaper that the fancier preps but does well for 11+. It wouldn't suit every kid though; at least one of mine needs a bigger busier school so state is better than small private for her.