Private school fees up 43%

[UnquietDad]

story here

Deliberate, do you think?...

So if only "18 professions" can now afford them, and they don't include teachers, architects or police officers, what are they? Any offers?

Quite smallwhite

Buy your children lots of books

Go to art galleries

Take cultural holidays

That's so unfair

swedes - the likely answer is no. But the question would depend on far too many variables. As you point out, it wouldn't just be my choice. What I'd like is a situation where people did not have to pay to get a good school, which is what seems to have to happen at the moment. A good school should be available through the state.

I went to a grammar school and I am incensed that my children will not have the same opportunity.

QueenM's neck of the woods with the bursaries for under £75k income!! That's surely pretty much everyone on a normal, non-hedge-fund job.

QueenMeabhOfConnaught - I agree entirely. Lots of people "pay" for education - and not just those paying outwardly through school fees. But somehow people seem to find it more acceptable tht people will move and pay a fortune to live in the "rght" catchment, when of course really it is no different.

Nobody has really addressed my "reassuringly expensive" question yet.

Surely that is the USP of the private school? And if they were affordable then they'd drive away some of those who want them to be exclusive?

I hate to say this UQD, but you need a reality check.

"What I'd like is a situation where people did not have to pay to get a good school, which is what seems to have to happen at the moment. A good school should be available through the state."

And health care should be free and available whenever there is a need, and pensions should be available for all and support all in a reasonably comfortable lifestyle.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? Have you been out of your mind on drugs? Living in Ulan Bator in a yurt without access to news from home? Really.

Life isn't like that any more. Adapt or die old thing.

It is in all of our interests for all children in this country to have a good education. UK education levels used to be the best in the world...I believe that our state sector is now well down the list.

Otherwise there will not be enough well educated teachers or other professionals and even those in private schools will end up being taught by people who can't spell, who have been educated in poor state schools.

The government appear to have their priorities wrong..why have they spent so much on new school buildings and interactive whiteboards etc.? Why are comprehensives getting bigger and bigger? Expect loads is being spent on bureaucracy etc.

It would be better if they arranged things so that no school contained more than 1000 pupils, and made class sizes smaller. They could also pay teachers more. Then there is the constant assessment of children's levels rather than spending time teaching children in an interesting way.

Maybe now that David Cameron and Gordon Brown have children starting school they will wake up to common sense and start coming up with some decent education policies..

"Nobody has really addressed my "reassuringly expensive" question yet.

Surely that is the USP of the private school? And if they were affordable then they'd drive away some of those who want them to be exclusive?"

Oh god another question from outer mongolia.

1. Private schools are not reassuringly expensive. They are just expensive. Different thing.

1. "If they were affordable..." They are not affordable. Whatever the bolloxy Times says about one parent earning £40k or the minimum wage or whatever, parents have to cripple themselves to afford them.

1. "... they'd drive away some of those who want them to be exclusive". No-one unless they are the Duchess of Kent or otherwise demented wants the schools to be exclusive. It's all in your head.

five candles and Qc - you have tried valiantly to get people to stick to the point, but some people just see a thread on 'private' education and use it to rehearse all their old prejudices.

And when ADULTS!!! start bleating about how things 'should' be, reminds me of how when my kids were were smaller they would whine about 'its not fair' - surely when you grow up you get to realise that someone is NOT actually going to wave a magic wand and make it all better.
Like QC said.

Isn't the Duchesse of Kent a primary school teacher in Hull?

Oh yes. In Hull. I think she might be a special needs teacher actually.

Talk to UQD, He's an expert on modern-day fond fantasies. In his world, there might be post-offices that are not grim and threatened with closure but jolly places peopled by Postman Pat and his black and white cat. All trains run on time. Otherwise the Fat Controller would jolly well tell them off.

The downside is that I do believe that everyone in his world also eats Stork Margarine as well as driving British Leyland cars.

Mrsguyofgisbourne

Your post is very rude to those of us who have spent time trying to give a balanced view...are you accusing me of having old prejudices? If so please tell me what they are?

As I currently have children in the state and private sector and have been taught in both sectors myself I believe I am able to see both sides of the argument.

UQDs arguments are ridiculous..even the use of the term USP makes me cringe.. I think he has misunderstood the aims of the private sector which I believe are basically to give a good education ..its not some flashy business like a luxury car manufacturer!

Agree with Quattrocento re "reassuringly expensive" comment.

If anything I guess DD's "USP" (to quote UQD) would be to be the only girls only prep school in the region, to provide good and varied eduction for the girls in small calsses and with well qualified teachers and other specialists.

I do think UQD is a teensy bit paranoid. My dcs' school fees HAVE gone up this year. This is to pay for moving part of the school currently housed in a woeful large house to a new building, a project which is costing over a million. State schools are currently benefiting from Schools for the Future grants (it's called something like this) which give them vast amounts of money to improve buildings. There is no conspiracy. Although we struggle to pay fees for 2 on our teachers wages I actually think we get good value for our money at our school. Fees rise to about 5000 per year in the senior schools and this pays for specialist teachers and teaching assistants (and their pensions etc), buildings, all equipment and bursaries who can't afford it etc. TBH I don't know how they do this since it must take about 7 children to pay the basic salary of one teacher a year (this wouldn't include sick pay, cover staff, teaching assistants, pension etc).

As for the whole, unfair advantage thing. Some of you have spent the whole thread arguing that private schools only churn out drug dealers and layabouts and are not superior in any way only to then decide that they actually do give an unfair advantage.

As for your belief that private school are wrong (because they discriminate and only educate a privileged minority?) but grammar (which use tax payers' money to discriminate and educate a privileged minority while writing off the rest) schools are not (because?). Bizarre.

Except I'm starting to understand a bit about your mentality UQD. Private schools = wrong because I can't afford them
Grammar schools = ok because no doubt my kids would get into them for free

And what about those parents who contribute to paying for them just as much as you do but whose kids don't get into them?

I think you'll find that you're also entitled to a free education Fio. Just as with health you can choose to pay for it if you want to and are able to.

Hey, 5, you're not JEALOUS of state schools getting Schools for the Future Grants, are you?!

And for many of us, as where we live, 5K a year in seniors is cheap, cheap, cheap! More like 12K here!

I must say I think you're tarring UQD with every anti-private school remark made on this thread. But I recognise it'd take commitment and drive to sift through the whole 11 pages of it to aim your missiles accurately!

Dear me, quattro, getting irked? People get rattled when they are losing the argument, perchance. What is wrong with saying a good school should be available through the state and not just for those who are able to pay for them?

I would actually like there to be some viable (non-religious) alternative to the state system for those whose children, for whatever reason, need it. Note - those whose children need it, and not, at the moment, a system predicated upon parents' ability to pay. Because there is absolutely no correlation between the two.

Those of you who really don't think the fees are somehow "reassuringly expensive", ask yourselves this - would you be happy for the fees to be £5 per term? Or £50? We are into George Bernard Shaw and "haggling over the price" territory.

(Someone asked earlier what I meant by boutique. I may not understand it correctly, but what I understand by that in business terms is a small company which makes a profit through a smaller number of customers paying a relatively large amount, and not, as with a company selling cornflakes or baked beans, as many customers as possible paying a reasonable price.)

Incidentally, I'm not actually pro grammar- our nearest have been hijacked by wealthy middle class parents who effectively buy their DCs 11+ via prep schooling, but to say grammars educate 'a privileged minority' is incorrect- I think the MN term is 'bollox'. They certainly used to educate 'a minority with a high IQ'. Funnily enough including- gasp- kids from council houses.

Not at all jealous. Really glad about the new buildings for state schools, absolutely delighted about E-learnign credits, intereactive whiteboards in every room etc. The more investment in state education the better. My only gripe about this kind of thing is that however fantastic the building (and it should be!) is that IMO the best use of Govt investment in education would be in reducing class sizes.

I've been playing with the theory that UQD is actually a Time Lord and landed in 2008 By Mistake, actually thinking it was 1988. So I googled 1988 to remind myself of what happened, and I think I've got the year wrong. It's far too advanced for UQD. I think he belongs securely home in 1985. You could make a case for 1983, but I'm convinced 1985 is the right year.

FioFio - yes, I can get urgent treatment on the NHS true. But why is it right that someone who pays will get quicker treatment than me (not paying) for non urgent treatment? Surely it is exactly the sme issue as schooling.

Rest assured that in 1985 I was a spotty, gawky, thoroughly miserable, Thatcher-hating teenager. Nice try.