Just wondering... how do you think the financial turmoil will affect private school applications this year?

[PrincessPeaHead]

It was difficult enough to see who the hell could afford boarding fees of £8800 per term in a boom economy... now? Do you think there will be a big move from boarding to private day options (cheaper) or in fact also a big fall in private day applications as people try for grammars/use the good local comp ?

Just musing really.

mystery solved - I left my laptop logged on to MN and ds1 was having a good old read. Sorry.

The few boarders I know are funded by their grandparents. Of the day pupils, parents are pilots, forces, IT or inherited so not suffering yet.

All my banker acquaintances actually have their DCs at our local state primaries (but there are state primaries and state primaries - these ones have swimming pools, mini-buses, extra staff etc).

I would however, wager that there will be a lot of Range Rovers on the market in the next twelve months (and thus more parking at available at school ).

Blimey, fivecandles, calm down [Harry Enfield scouser actions]. I'm not arguing with someone who is getting hysterical.

And I love the assumptions you are making without realising it. (I do not live in the South, I do not live in an especially "leafy" suburb and I certainly don't have a grammar school next door. Oh, the irony.)

I don't agree with faith schools either, which is why I don't send my children to them. I find it incredible that all your local state schools are faith-based.

And I have never been claiming that all those who use the private sector are "privileged" (although I can see how it is easier to presume this position and argue against it - classic Internet-argument straw-man-ism).

There is a big, big difference - which is easy to miss - between that and saying, as I am, that the fees are a "luxury item" in the technical sense which, I'm sorry, they ARE. They are beyond the reach of most people, even those who make "sacrifices".

Hardly hysterical UQD. Oh how patronising and dismissive you are.

I wasn't necessarily saying that you did live in the South UQD just making the point again that those people who bang on about how rich and hoity toity the parents who send their kids to private school are often don't realize how much of their own money goes towards a lifestyle that many people would also find rich and hoity toity.

I thought your dw was a teacher in the state sector? So you have a pretty good idea what sort of salary dp and I live on (both teachers me part-time). I'm not complaining at all but the stereotypes that you are bandying about hardly apply to us. The school fees pretty much take up my salary so we live off dp's wage. Hardly a life of luxury.

As for the faith thing. I also find it incredible. I don't want to give away where I live but you'll find it's a masssive issue with certain Northern towns. White flight to the suburbs and faith schools means that the schools are almost entirely segregated. My nearest primary school is actually a 'community' school but because there is also a Catholic and a C of E school in the cathment the community school is 99% Asian with the vast majority being Muslim. This is not uncommon in towns like mine. It is well documented that such divisions are largely responsible for race riots in recent years. And the positive action to address it has involved initiatives like bussing children from C of E schools into entirely Asian schools and vice versa. I can't tell you how strongly I feel about my kid receiving a secular education but also growing up with kids from different faiths and ethnicities. There's an irony that my kids are actually more likely to mix with children from different cultures and faiths at school and different cultures and faiths and social classes at home then a lot of kids who go to good state schools. The research from the sutton trust would back this up.

I'm making the point that because of the country we live in there is not a black and white choice which means if your kids go private you are not in touch with the real world, uncaring, snobby, ignorant and rich whereas if your kids go to a state school you are poor, culturally aware etc.

I know two people very well who live in the aforementioned leafy suburbs in houses there's no way I could afford even without the school fees who send their kids to faith school although they are atheists.

At least I don't use taxpayers money to fund my kids' education.

But then this isn't a competition. As there are choices nobody can be condemned for using them. Actually I don't blame the parents who exploit the system to get their kids into a faith school where they don't have a faith - I blame the system itself.

UQD - as I read it, fivecandles is not being 'hysterical' in her posts at all, and levelling that accusation is quite frankly insulting. Your arguments are passionate and articulate, but sound very much as if they are coming from a person with a large chip on his shoulder.

I am amazed and disappointed at the general tone here - which reads as gloating and sometimes barely disguised pleasure - that the 'snobby' parents and their 'priviledged' children will possibly have to 'get into the real world' as a result of the financial crisis.

UQD, I've agreed with you already that many people can't afford private school fees.

There are 2 issues here though 1) that there are also many who COULD afford the fees if they had different priorities
2) That there are bursaries up to 100% available at all private schools and up to 50% of attendees could be in receipt of them at some schools.

I think it's your choice of words which is unhelpful. Paying for private school fees is NOT the same as buying a 'luxury item'. For one thing education is not an 'item' and as other posters have said, it's not considered a luxury so much as essential FOR THEM given their values, priorities and the local schools available to them. You can't compare education to a pair of shoes or a flash car. It's not a superficial, material possession.

Thanks Earlybird. I agree with you that there's something deeply unpleasant about the gloating. It's very different to argue that everybody is entitled to a good education and even to say it's not fair that there are such inequalities in the education system in this country (a laudable and generally shared point of view) from saying 'Ha, I'm glad you lot are all going to have to suffer like the rest of us.'

I'd go without a lot to be able to continue with paying 5 lots of private school and university fees but obviously it's a luxury as are many of the things we all take for granted. We all make our own priorities. For example I only drink tap water and don't drink alcohol so what some people regard as essential like tea or orange juice or coffee I could, if I chose, characterise as over extravagant luxuries.

But I don't agree life has to be fair and we all have to be the same. That's a ridiculous position. We are born clever or stupid, ugly or pretty, nasty or nice and life is very unfair and always will be and any aim to ensure we are all the same is pointless and not even worth trying for. What I do want is that this country or the wider world can produce the workers we need in the areas we need them and if people are entirely uneducated in the state system then industry cannot function and society doesn't work as well and if some English underclass never work and we have to ship in labour from abroad we have the cost of keeping that lumpen underclass in benefits so from that point of view I would prefer it if we had employable working class people rather than uneducated ones. I hear Spain has 11% unemployed at the moment and we might be in for a lot more here.

I don't think a decent education should be (considered) a luxury.

The thing that's nasty is the revelling in other people's (and their kids) misfortune.

Regardless of what I think of the profession of bankers, estate agents etc I don't chuckle at the thought of some of them being made redundant.

It surprises me that some people think it's ok to enjoy the fact that some people's kids are going to be taken out of private school esp since it's the children that will suffer more than anyone.

But it's not a simple case of saying "Ha, I'm glad you lot are all going to have to suffer like the rest of us." What annoys and slightly offends me is the insinuation that it would be a complete disaster to have to use a system which 93% of people use, and which the vast majority of people in this country have no option but to use. Bursaries don't help if you allegedly earn "too much" to be eligible for them (which means a normal professional salary in many cases).

I don't like "choice". For me, "choice" is a way for the government to abdicate its responsibilities. As long as they argue they are giving us "choice", a "choice" which includes faith schools and academies and private schools, they can get away with not having to bring failing schools up to scratch. I believe most parents don't really want "choice" - they want a local school and a good school to be in the same building. It's just that "choice" is presented to them as the way of getting what they want. This has the double effect of making the obtaining of education a dog-eat-dog thing, and of turning education into a commodity.

I know from experience that if a school in a local area is "bad" (which means it has a bad reputation, usually, rather than bad teaching) then the educated and involved parents will avoid it, so it ends up in a depressing spiral of bad rep-poor results-worse rep-worse results-special measures. I'm not actually a great fan of the comprehensive system, but even I can see that this isn't how it is meant to work.

And I know this because DW does indeed teach in the state sector, in a very "challenging" school. One which has a lot going for it, but which people can't see because they won't see beyond the poor academic results.

'snobby parents and privileged children'

well it is rather an apt description isn't it? .. the children are amazingly privileged to be in the 7% that can go to private schools

and many parents can be incredibly snobby about it (have you ever read Xenia's posts?)

But it's all relative. To the starving in Africa UK state benefits are the height of luxury. Or to those from countries wehre children 5 - 10 are lucky if they get any education to get a free education here of the standard of our worst primaries is manna from heaven.

What is hard for people to adjust to is big changes but I do think it does children good. We have been fairly burdened because of teh divorce, obviously still better off than most people but in terms of the impact on the children I find it is only a good thing when they have to get used to less. My son's friend who had to leave the school during last term because of financial problems, in that case I think it was the father more than the son who was so hurt by it. They were first time buyers to the private sector and it was the top of his achievement in a way and I am sure he feels he's let down his son. Obviously we all feel sorry for people in all difficult situations and that includes someone who loses a job as a cleaner and has to go on benefits (assuming they're worse off on benefits).

How are the might fallen etc is obviously something the poor have always delighted in and I have not seen any bankers yet who do not realise they are not likely to find themselves sympathetically treated. What is clear is they are in a much better position to pick themselves up, put their non working husband or wife back into work and build things up again in most cases.

Oh God twig

can we all please agree that there are very few people on any side ofthis debate that regard Xenias posts as being indicative ofthe views of most parents of children at private school

I have never met anyone who expresses views like hers and two of my children are at privaye schools. Never met one.
I think I saw one once from a distance but I ran away..

But everything my children have is extraordinary compared to my upbringing.
I look at their lives and i can't quite believe that they are my children.
But that does not equate to snobbyness or indeed to any sense of entitlement which is the equation that you are assuming?

My Ds1 is old enough to understand the luxury of his education. he values it and respects it.

To assume he/we are snobby is just another easy stereotype isn't it?

'What annoys and slightly offends me is the insinuation that it would be a complete disaster to have to use a system which 93% of people use, and which the vast majority of people in this country have no option but to use.'

I don't think anybody is saying this. I'm not. In fact, I've said repeatedly that state schools generally excel with what they've got to work with. For me, given my area and the circumstances I've outlined having to use my local state schools WOULD be a complete disaster. I wouldn't send my kids to either of my nearest two schools. I COULDN'T send them to the Catholic one anyway. So I'd have to move into a leafy suburb which would actually leave me worse off financially since the mortgage would be more than the school fees and ironically my kids would mix only with white, middle class kids.

It's not black and white.

You have to accept that while many schools are great; many aren't.

The average A-C at GCSE in the secondaries in my 2 local LEAs that aren't faith schools are between 30-50% whereas my dcs' school is 99%.

And there's a fairly clear link between the schools and their catchments (distorted by faith school and grammar schools which often do not represent their local areas) so it's all very well saying your local school is perfectly good if you live in a middle class area in which case chances are you're middle class and so are most of the kids who go to the school.

'Bursaries don't help if you allegedly earn "too much" to be eligible for them (which means a normal professional salary in many cases).'

Well, yep, bursaries are intended for those on low incomes and rightly so. If you're just over the threshold then you have difficult choices to make. There are lots of people at my dcs school who this applies to. Some work longer hours even two jobs. Or other sacrifices.

I do freelance work and examining as well as my teaching job and we don't have expensive holidays etc.

Actually I agree with you. Ban private schools, faith schools, grammar schools and league tables. And then I'd be a lot happier about opting for my local state school.

Yes, as X says, it's all relative. The bottom line is that, unlike education itself, private education is not essential. 7% of the population might choose to use the system (and a great many more might like to use it if only they could afford it) but it is not an essential. In the same way that food is essential, but eating out at restaurants every night is not.
It is, at the end of the day, a choice, because there is an alternative. You might not like the alternative, but it's there.
I have no problem with people choosing the private system (my DCs are the only ones of all their 9 cousins who are in state schools. We're very lucky to have access to outstanding ones that we don't have to pay for) if that's a priority for them. Many people have already said on here that the school fees will be the last thing to go. Fine. But sorry, I just do not think it is essential.

It's not essential bit people tend to want what they had as chidlren. So if you lived in a reasonable detached house you probably want that. If you went to a private school as I did you want that. It's this idea that you do as well as your parents or better or that you got used to something in your own childhood and therefore take it as a kind of norm for you and your family. Just like I am happy with the £2 Tesco chickens and drinking tap water and some mumsnetters have to have organic free range chickens and drink other drinks.

UQD, I think the problem (in the debate) is that you are ideologically opposed to private education in the same way that Xenia is ideologically for private education. The trouble is that those of us you are pitching against on this thread have chosen the private sector for far more practical reasons.

I don't think FC's post sound at all hysterical. If anything she just sounds weary from having to repeat and explain the reasons for her choice. Which incidently yoy seem to ignore as it's easier to suggest she's done it to avoid the other '93%'. Also I'm sure you know this 7% figure is only an average and will vary across the country.

I also want to pick up on your comment about people avoiding the school your DW teaches in 'just' because it has a bad reputation and poor academic results. Well if you're going to expect people to put their ideology before their own kids education then I think you're deluded. We don't all live in the world of Fiona Miller. Ordinary individuals without her 'weight' cannot make a difference. IMO it is pie in the sky to subscribe to the notion that if only supportive MC parents used their local sink school instead of opting out they could turn it around.

So what would we tell ourselves? That it's ok that half the maths lesson was wasted when things kicked off because now that all the 'involved' parents send their kids there it was only 3kids having a scrap and at least they got half the lesson whereas before they would have missed the entire thing??? That swearing at teachers and throwing chairs has dramatically reduced this year before the disruptive lot have been watered down? Well that's great but I'm not sending my kids to school to help water down/weed out someone else's behaviour problem.

Parents (who can) make the choice for a whole host of reasons. Fivecandles has already told you hers. I've heard Martianbishop say it's because the wraparound care is vital for her and not offered at her local school.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MINE??? Cards on the table. Keep in mind that I also teach in the state sector.

• I have been sworn at, abused both physically and frequently verbally throughout my career. I was kicked to the ground whilst pregnant. I see good kids from supportive homes lose out both educationally and pastorally because of all the other crap their teacher has to deal with. There is no way I am sending my kids into that situation if I can help it.

AM I A SNOB? You bet your arse I am. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with money or income. It has everything to do with respect. Tell me tomorrow that my fees are going up to help support kids from the social housing up the road and I'd have only one concern; Are their parents keen and supportive? Do the kids want to learn and their parents want them to learn? I know full well that the vast majority of families who use the state sector are like this. But I'm not prepared to accept those who aren't.

Of course, the wraparound care and outstanding facilities are important to me also. Contrary to what Xenia was suggesting, I actually grew upon one of the roughest council estates in the country. Education was my way out. But it was all about the academic side simply because I wanted out. I want my kids to experience a more rounded education.

Blimy, myredcardigan. Well said. Your attitude sounds spookily like mine actually. TBH, I think you actually have to work in the state sector to know how even many good schools are just not good enough.

Thanks ES. When I read back, I wondered if everyone would assume I was talking about very poorly rated schools. In fact one of them was a 'beacon' school in a leafy home counties village.
Re the pg story, I asked a boy to stand against the wall after he spat in the face of a reception child who would not give him her snack. He swore at me, kicked me in the shin and pushed me. I actually fell over (6mths gone and crap balance). Oh and he called me a f*ing fat whore. Nice!

I have taught in schools with seriously deprived catchment areas. Even in areas such as this I still had, maybe, 12-15 (of 30) who had parents who were supportive and keen. But to be honest, half their education was lost due to their teacher having to deal with the other 15.

I put that last paragraph in there because I think it's important to clarify that nobody thinks that state schools are full of scally parents/kids who don't give a shit. I'm well aware that you get a brad spectrum of parents wherever a school is based.
I'm just not prepared, and I'm fortunate enough not to have to, put up with those who are.

Incidently, it's not about academic levels with me either. Unlike Xenia, I'm happy to send my kids to school with children across the academic spectrum. I just want a safe, productive and fun learning experience for them.

UQD I think mrc's post is an excellent summary. Not all of us live in a 2 parent household or have relatives who can help with childcare. Some of us are really on our own. I had the choice of sending my ds to the local failing state school and trying to find a childminder to do the hours of care I need or (for the same cost) choosing a vg private school that provides wrap around care and a nurturing environment. I have no private is better mentality at all it just is compared with the state alternative. And I speak as a state educated person whose primary and secondary schools had acres of playing fields and swimming pools.

The other choice I do have as a single parent is to quit my job, be a satm living on benefits and send my ds to the local state school. He'd probably end up with an asbo at 14 and you'd be objecting to paying my benefits! Instead I work, pay my taxes and manage to do the best I can with what I have and make huge sacrifices to give the person who matters most in my life the best start in life that I can.

I'm also a state educated person whose primary and secondary schools had acres of playing fields and swimming pools (well, not acres of pool, but one, anyway). Not sure what difference that makes. I'm well aware of the huge variations across the system. Of course, some people don't live in a 2-parent household, etc., and have no option other than the local comp. I'm sorry I have to keep saying this but it does tend to get a bit overlooked when independent education is presented as a "choice", even an option when it is NOT for a huge number of people.

I am for some reason being painted as portraying parents of children at private school as "snobby", which if you read back through the thread is hugely inaccurate. People need to lighten up, read what I am actually saying and stop writing huge ranty posts which presume that I am some sort of imbecile who will eventually "understand" if - I - just - keep - saying - it - over - and over.

Nobody is asking anyone to be Fiona Millar, or to put any "ideology" before their children's education. I just made what I thought was an interesting and telling - and true, actually - comment about the school where DW teaches. People (middle-class parents especially) obsess over results. The school where DW teaches is bottom of the league table. Hence nobody chooses to go there from out of catchment, even though it may have other things to offer. And for the vast majority of those in that catchment, the very idea of private education is like the idea of owning a house in somewhere like Alderley Edge, or having a private plane. It is that far removed from reality. It is a luxury.