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?

UQD - You have trotted out some real guff on this thread. I don't really mind about that but it's bad form to misquote me and not even have the decency to apologise when it's pointed out.

I was privately educated and wanted the same for DD. However, really not sure about value for money. Went to check out my 'old school' and its certainly moved on .. but I think standards have reduced....

And what is your bloody point? You don't seem to have a point.

Sorry daffodil that wasn't aimed at you.

Swedes - OK, I'm sorry - I didn't actually misquote you anyway, it was just a reference that I couldn't find.

I do tend to find on here that people's definition of "guff" is "stuff I don't personally agree with."

I opened this thread because I thought it would provoke an interesting debate - I didn't have a definite idea of where I thought it might go.

My point, well one of them anyway, is that there are more complex factors at play in the pricing of private schools than are implied by the articles, which seem to tie it into the general economic woes of the moment as if it's somehow like the price of bread. I've been trying to point out that, for some private schools, there is actually an appeal in being expensive. Or at least in not seeming cheap.

And also, tied into that, that it's a shame that the state system is now so under-resourced that people who would have used it 20 years ago are now going private to get the same school experience for their children which they had, rather than something extra. I can't be alone in finding that depressing.

I am with Swedes. Swedes is talking sense. That UQD is rambling incoherently. I fear he may be drunk.

Sadly I am stone cold sober. This may be where I am going wrong when it comes to posting on here.

'My point, well one of them anyway, is that there are more complex factors at play in the pricing of private schools than are implied by the articles, which seem to tie it into the general economic woes of the moment as if it's somehow like the price of bread. I've been trying to point out that, for some private schools, there is actually an appeal in being expensive. Or at least in not seeming cheap.'

UQD, this is simply not true. It suits your conspiracy theory but it is based on speculation and paranoia. Private schools' accounts are transparent (if there were massive unexplained fee rises then parents would be outraged and charitable status would not be given).EVIDENCE has actually been provided for you about schools lack of profit etc and it has been suggested that you look at the Charity commission. I have told you why my dcs' school fees went up last year (to pay for a new building and parents have been given details about costings etc). Oh, sorry I'm mistaking you for someeone who is actually interested in FACTS and EVIDENCE rather that your own rather odd speculations.

''We are so used to expecting the worst in the state system that we are relieved when we get the averagely-good. It's depressing that we settle for it, but we do.'

Please be careful about using the inclusive pronoun 'we' here. I do not expect the worst in the state system. I work in the state system. I think there are hundreds examples of good practice in even (in fact especially) in the worst performing (in terms of league tables) schools and hundreds of wonderful state schools. It's you that's knocking the state system and not me. My problem with state schools is 1.) Not enough investment 2.)(linked to 1) class sizes, specialist teachers and training is inadequate to deal with the increasingly complex and diverse needs that students present 3.) League tables, faith schools, grammar schools mean that the system is already divided and unequal

My decision to put my kids in private school is no reflection on teachers or even schools but because GOVT policy and social issues has led to some very specific problems in the schools in my area (total division along ethnic lines so that there are schools which are 100% white and schools which are 100% Asian etc).

'My point about the price has been missed.'

No, it hasn't. Your complaints about private schools would mysteriously disappear if you could afford them. You are not really objecting to private schools in principle (a view I would respect) you are just complaining that you can't afford them and therefore slagging off and making assumptions about the people who can.

'there is actually an appeal in being expensive. Or at least in not seeming cheap.'

Guff.

' I am all in favour of a proper, non-religious alternative to the state system for those people whose children genuinely need it and/or would benefit from it. At the moment, an alternative to the state system is available for those people who are willing to pay. The idea that these are even remotely the same thing is laughable, and yet some people still confuse them in their minds. '

This is beyond stupid. Doesn't even make sense. You want INDEPENDENT education to be provided for the people who most need it (the poor?) which is FREE????

'It's not going to happen unless some billionaire philanthropist sets it up. (And they'd be bound to have an agenda...) I'd like to think some in the existing private sector could be equally philanthropic. '

NEWSFLASH. There is free education - it's state education. NEWSFLASH most private schools (all if they have charitable status) have a philanthropic mission. They provide bursaries and scholarships to those who can't afford it. Do you know anything about private schools??? They were initially the ONLY schools and they were set up by billionaire philantropists.

A link to the history of Manchester Grammar School for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Grammar_School
set up by a wealthy corn mill owner to promote 'godliness and good learning'. Initially free but selective by ability.

Excuse me for stating the blindingly bloody obvious but I think you may have missed it UQD. Private schools have to charge fees because they are not funded by the state. Teachers, other staff, buildings, books etc cost money. They do not make profits. THey do not charge fees because they think they think people LIKE to pay fees and increase fees because they want to be exclusive and also think people like to pay as much money as possible. They do offer bursaries which are means tested. The students who get the bursaries are often among the most gifted in the country but also from deprived backgrounds.

Well, fivecandles, I've obviously rattled your cage and you have an interesting need to continually justify your decision. I almost don't want to argue with someone who addresses me in such a childish, patronising way.

I still haven't had a justification as to why an alternative to the state comp should be predicated upon parents' ability to pay. I doubt I'm going to get one on here.

Erm, because how else would they be funded? How can you be so stupid?

Anyway there is an alternative to state funded education which is 'free'. It's called home education or apply for a scholarship at a private school = free + alternative to state.

I am not 'justifying' my choice so much as explaining it to you in an obviously vain attempt to dispel the myths and stereotypes which you are in the business of churning out here. I.e that parents choose private school out of snobbery and wishing to avoid setting foot in 'ghastly' (your word) state schools which actually I work in (on holiday now I should addd).

Not everybody is in a position to home educate. Scholarships are limited. "Ghastly" was not "my word" but was a quote from a parent. I find it very vexing to have to argue with someone who has taken up the idea that I am "stupid" and wants to run with it.

Ok, Ok, you are not stupid UQD. God forbid that I should make you storm off in a huff. I do wonder though how somebody intelligent could have come out with this question, 'I still haven't had a justification as to why an alternative to the state comp should be predicated upon parents' ability to pay.'

You want a set of schools which are not funded by the state and not funded by parents either.

Home ed doesn't count and neither do the scholarships and bursaries set up by private schools (which as I've pointed out were usually set up by precisely the wealthy philanthropists and often continue to be subsidised by such today that you were earlier wishing would set up private schools!!)

Sorry that I am 'vexing' you UQD

Mumsnet experienced tech problems there for a while. You couldn't read anyone else's posts. It was Mumsnet UQD style. No need to listen to what anyone else is saying; just keep reiterating your totally intransigent viewpoint. Plus, make sure the viewpoint has no other basis but chippyness.

The last time I accused anyone of being "chippy" on here I seem to recall I was quite thoroughly pasted. Sauce, goose, gander, etc...

Well I have no idea what UQD is waffling on about. I think he wants academically excellent schools that are free for the bright.

We used to have this system. It was called grammar schools. They were abolished as being inherently unfair as only the bright could get in.

Now they are being reintroduced through the back door because independent schools are being compelled to widen access and offer lots of scholarships.

These are funded by private school parents . Which you could if you like view as yet another stealth tax.

In one sense, I see a little bit of UQD's point.

I'm sure that there are some parents who send their son to Eton who do so because it costs mega bucks and it has social cachet (i.e. it is exclusive).

But most private schools are not like Eton (or Charterhouse or other such places). At my dc's (very ordinary) state primary 5 children are going to private school this year. One has a dad who is a clerk and a mum who is a shop assistant.

Queenmeabh - Actually Eton now run on an academic meritocracy. Of course their fees are high but they offer very generous bursaries and scholarships. For example they offer 4 x sixth form scholarships to boys from the state sector - they are awarded according to merit.

Yes, I do think that most of UQD's rather unclear arguments are really just a way of saying,

'I went to grammar school and I'm pissed off that my kids aren't in a grammar school. Oh, and I'm also pissed off that other people can afford to go to private school which means they get a grammarish education but once again I can't and oh, look some of those private school toff type parents who I don't know but am choosing to stereotype and make assumptions about are not going to be able to afford their private school fees any more so hee, hee I'll rub my hands in glee because they, like me will just have to tough it out at the state school which pleases me cos if I can't afford it then why the hell should anyone else be able to and so I'll just enjoy their misfortune even though I am addressing quite a lot of them on this site and they are not actually toffs and I'll just throw a bit of conspiracy theory in for good measure because private schools are all exactly like Eton even though schools like these educate probably less than 1% of all kids and are therefore just for toffs who like being toffs and enjoy paying for the privilege'

About right UQD?

The thing that's most annoying about all of this is it's entirely selfishly motivated. There's nothing about improving the lot of the average kid, there's nothing about improving achievement for the working class (unless they're already bright enough and successful enough to get into grammar schools), there's nothing positive about state education or even some schools etc etc. UQD has no qualms at all about the notion of taking everyone's taxes to pay for the education of the few (via grammar schools which have and would continue to exclude the majority and certainly the majority of working class kids) with, of course, the assumption that his kids would be part of that privileged few (as he was) and yet he berates those people who pay for their kids' education directly out of their own pocket as well as paying their taxes (and often supporting the state system in other ways i.e. by teaching in it).

And the stuff about wanting some billionaire philanthropists to come along and set up schools without seeming to realize or acknowlege when it is pointed out to him that this is exactly how most private schools WERE established but they now must charge fees to run because they no longer receive state funding otherwise they would be state schools.

Someone or some source has to pay for children's education. If the money comes from taxpayers then they should be open to ALL taxpayers' kids and run according to Govt policy. If parents choose to pay for their kids' education directly either by choosing a private school or by home educating them then that has to be respected.

Goodness me, fivecandles, you are angry. If I didn't know better I'd say you were the chippy one, not me.