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?

I don't see anger - frustration, perhaps, at the cloth ears.

It seems most Mumsnetters are in a slightly different financial position to me- or else the ones that aren't are keeping out of this argument. The assumption seems to be that affording private school is simply a matter of doing without expensive holidays and 10K weddings.

If dh and I were to educate our two privately it wouldn't just mean going without a car and expensive clothes (we do that anyway), but sleeping under the stars and subsisting on dewdrops. The fees and extras mentioned in earlier posts would just about cover our joint income.

Though I'm not sure that this really bothers me. I mean, I knew there were people richer than me. And consequently children more privileged than mine.

I know there is an argument for wanting a genuinely comprehensive system- and I know the overall results in Swedish education took a nosedive when they introduced the independent schools (no longer leading the world in education). I don't like the grammar school system, because it creams off the most academic children and the best teachers; I want them spread out a bit.

But on a personal level, I am happy with the state school dc's are attending. True, they don't have wonderful sports facilities, so in a sense you could say they are underprivileged. But then so is their homelife-I can't afford to keep them with a yacht or a pony or take them on holidays in the Caribbean. Big deal. What I can do is to ensure that they make the most of any opportunities offered.

I could be getting angry at the way I'm continually being misnterpreted and misquoted on here, but I actually feel there is little point.

(I kind of wish I had not let on that I'd been to a grammar school, as it has given fivecandles something to point misguidedly and say "aha!!" about and a stick to beat me with.)

Is it Groundhog Day?

Is it Groundhog Day?

cory, you are assuming that you would pay full fees.

As I mentioned a while ago my local private school offers bursaries on incomes up to £75k on a sliding scale.

Someone on £10k per annum would be expected to pay £60 per year, someone on £23k would be expected to pay £600 per year.

Swedes, I know Eton have generous bursaries - they also offer places at 10 to boys who have been at state schools, paying prep school fees for them for three years. It's just that Eton is the sort of school that springs to mind when I think of exclusive schools!!!!

5candles I must admit to having a bit of a laugh when I read your post of today at 15:29:46

Love it that UQD thinks he's being misquoted

No anger here at all UQD. Quite chilled actually.

I do wonder how exactly you've been 'misinterpreted'? Some of your arguments are quite simply wrong like your idea that there is some sort of agenda behind fee increases and they're not just, well, fee increases (to cover costs) really.

Others are hypocritical like the idea that the exclusivity of grammar schools is o.k because they're free (though not to the taxpayers most of whose kids will not be allowed to attend them).

Others are quite bizarre like your idea that someone somewhere should set up private schools that are not funded by the state but not funded by parents either and that these would be a good thing.

And now you've just kind of wandered off into vague accusations without really referring to other people's points at all.

Is that not his MO? Therefore, why should he change now? The notion that there is a conspiracy behind (allegedly) large fee increases only adds spice to the debate - a slight twist on what we are used to.

I don't think there is an agenda behind the fee increases - I think it's cost of heat/light etc which hits all schools, not just private ones; pay rises, NI contributions from employers, and pension contributions as well. If buildings need to be upgraded then that has to be paid for too.

The International schools here in Belgium aren't recognised as schools by the Belgian authorities, but as businesses, which means the fees are astronomical; so the companies employing the parents pay as part of the working abroad deal. The fees for ds's day school are roughly the same as a good senior boarding school in the UK, and there is no swimming pool, or sports fields and the majority of the after school clubs are run by parents, so in that context, fee rises in private schools in Britain aren't bad. We also are expected to contribute to fund raising events which benefit the school as well.

Mmm-hmm, so, let's start using this thread to have a bash at grammar schools. Because heaven forbid that anyone should say anything about fee-paying schools, but grammar schools, they're just nasty and old-fashioned and repressive, aren't they?

Look UQD it's you who started this thread but then refuse to respond to or even acknowledge the points being made.

Perhaps if I pose more direct questions you might respond to them????

1.) What exactly is your objection to private schooling?

You've made it clear that you are not against private education in principle. In fact, earlier you were hoping that some billionaire philanthropists would set up more of them.

So what is your problem? That they cost too much? That they often select by ability? That they charge at all? That you can't afford it? What?

And if you have no objection then why the sneering attitude to parents who have chosen private education for their kids? Why the stereotyping and assumptions?

2.) How can you square your views about parents who choose private education for their kids (assuming they are snobbish and that they find fees 'reassuringly expensive' I mean which is very, very far removed from my experience and I imagine any other parents who have chosen private school here) with your approval for grammar schools which use taxpayers money to educate a minority of (mainly middle-class) kids and exclude the rest while in the process splitting brothers and sisters and neighbours from neighbours?

3.) Do you still believe that there is some sort of exclusivity agenda behind fee rises? If so, how do you think that scholarships and bursaries fit into this agenda? Or do you accept that schools are affected by rising costs as is everyone else?

UQD - I think a lot of your views about private schools are based on a lot of preconcieved ideas of what some private schools may be like, rather than what most, normal private schools are like. TBH, the scenarios you describe ad the types of parents/situations you allude too simply are not the case at many, non-elite, private schools. I am aware it may be for those elite, highly competitive ones down South, but not for the majority. Certainly our local private schools are not as you describe.

There are many aspects of the educatio system that s not far. Private school is just a minority issue, educating only about 8% of children. Abolishing private will not ever solve the problem within the state system - t think it may is simply niave IMO.

I refuse to answer a hectoring list of itemised points. I will respond in my own way, thank you.

I don't think I have ever used the word "abolish". I am basically a liberal and abolishing things goes against my nature. I opened this thread just for a general discussion of the article and the underlying issues, which I think has happened.

I thought there was an implication in the original article that private school fees have just gone up in the way that everything inevitably has - bread and milk and fuel and so on - and wanted perhaps to challenge the idea that these were comparable. If private schools are over-subscribed, as people tell me, then it's a seller's market. I realise there are different kinds of private schools, but I don't think it's overly controversial to suggest that bought education is a high-end product, tailored to a particular clientele. (Regardless of whether they were set up initially by philanthropists or with charitable intent, which I don't dispute.)

Scholarships and bursaries, I have said before, are limited in number. They make little difference to most middle-income families.

As for the grammar school issue, I've already made that clear. You can call it a form of elitism if you like (and I've argued extensively on here against that, in other threads) but it's predicated not on parents' ability to pay but on the suitability of the school for the child. All strong economies need a skills mix, and a diversification of the state system would not be a bad thing - the only thing that stops it being properly debated is "chippy" (tm) people with a 60s attitude and a problem about secondary moderns, who somehow imagine that this reform would involve a return to the 11+ and people being - that wonderful creaky old phrase - "thrown on the scrap-heap". (This conveniently, and rather offensively, ignores the fact that we now live in a culture of life-long learning, very different from the expectations of 20 years ago when you basically had one shot at doing your A-levels).

Some people have said they can "sort of" see where I am coming from, which I think is the best I can hope for. (I think perhaps those who agree with me have buggered off having seen the reception I got...)

One could argue that grammar school entry may also be decided upon by which parents can afford to pay for the tutors to prep the children in the couple of years leading up to the entrance exam .... so based on a parent's ability to pay out again, yes? And of course this does happen.

hulababy - that is actually a fair observation, but one based on the existing, imperfect system. It's only true simply because we have so few grammar schools and so many people vying for places at them. I certainly never needed extra tuition to get into my grammar school and nor did anybody I know.

Oh, and there was no entrance exam for my school either. Maybe that was just the way Kent LEA did it at the time.

But that was in the past...things are very different now, as you admit. And the past system was not perfect either - as said earlier, secondary moderns and the failing of an 11+ was almost always seen as a bad thing. Nowadays, parents are so keen to get their children into the grammars that do exist that they will shell out all manner of moneys to ensure tey pass that exam.

Just like in places they dont exist. Almost all good schools, esp at secondary level, are in the best areas. This means that house prices in those areas rocket. Yet many people eagerly shell out extra money in order to get into that catchment - so that their child has the best chance of being accepted tot eh school; and therefore discriminating against those children whos parents cannot afford to live in the better catchment area.

Grammar schools have to be elitism - they are selective in their very nature, only taking the top x% of children (the elite academic-wise in other words). They select those most academically able, and discriminate against those that are not as able. They do not, therefore offer a fair and equal education system to all.

I don't actually thing the perfect system will ever exist. Because what is ideal for one person, will be substadard to another.

I thought grammars had the 11+ as their entrance exam?

Not sure - my mum certainly had to pass her 11+ in order to be accepted into her grammar. By the time I was that age, grammars locally did not exist.

I went to an ordinary secondary school for two years and then a grammar at 13 - that was the way it was done. That was in 1982.

Whether you see it as "fair" that they exist depends, I think, on how one views secondary moderns (or whatever their new replacement would be called). If you see them as a repository for "failures" then they will become this through a self-fulfilling prophecy. But why do we hear all the time about people who went to the secondary modern and became very successful in their own businesses? (I know plumbers, hairdressers and joiners of my age who are basically small businesspeople who are making a better living than a lot of people in more "AB" type professions.)

I certainly don't think we'd go back to an old 2-layer division with separation at 11. But it's clear the current system isn't working for a lot of kids.

And I agree that the whole catchment area/house price thing is ridiculous - it makes a mockery of the "comprehensive" system.

We certainly need a non academic approach to education for those chldren who, at say age 14, decide the current academic approach is not for them. This does not, however mean that all the bright kids do exams, and the non bright go to do vocational courses - it should be a choice made by children, after careful, impartial and fair advice and guidance from professionals who do not work for the school/course providers.

I agree that all children have the right to a good quality education, but I do not believe that they all need the same and equal educcation as one another. Children are individuals and should be given an education that is best suited to them.

But UQD - how come you went to grammar at 13? How were you chosen rather than others? Presumably not everyone went to the grammar after all. If not, then there must have been some form of selective process taking place.

Yes, it was a selective process. Top 10% I think. (Or 20%, I can't remember.) Academic selection - not financial. My school took from the widest social demographic in Kent and had the most diverse mix of ethnicities. (I'm not just saying that from somehow having observed it at 13 - a friend's dad was on the old boys' association committee ad has since been on it himself, and this is the official word.)