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.

I've not read the whole of this thread, but for my DS, attending the local state school would be a complete disaster.

My DD may be okay there, but I shall not be finding out.

My DH and I have just been discussing over supper what we can give up if our finances take a turn for the even worse. Holidays, cars and the Boden catalogue have already gone in order to finance school; DH is on the point of giving up wine (which I gave up a long time ago!)

Personally, I would give up pretty much everything rather than have the DCs move schools. I think a lot of people feel the same! The financial situation may be getting worse, but so is state education (in general - no need to provide examples of the exceptions, anyone). I would even (gasp) contemplate getting a job if it really, really came to it!!! (And that is really saying something...)

PMSL

UQD, it's this sort of post of yours that I think people find irritating, 'I find that interesting - in a tough financial climate the state sector suddenly seems more attractive, and people realise that all along they didn't need to be paying twice.'

Because it suggests that people who choose private school don't really know what the state sector is like and if they'd just give it a go then they'd find it 'attractive' when actually, since so many of us teach in the state sector, we know it better than anybody (and that's why we don't want our kids going there).

And the insistence on calling private education a 'luxury item' as if we were buying a flash car or some designer shoes.

That amongst other things (such as the fact that you said earlier that the fact that I knew the local schools and for this reason I didn't want my kids to go to them made me a snob) shows that you assume private school parents are snobby and rich and a bit dim really.

As for the thing about league tables, I totally accept that a school at the bottom of the league tables may have other things to offer and I think very often such schools have the best teachers and facilities and loads of money thrown at them. But if they are at the bottom of the league tables they clearly don't offer a great chance of getting good exam grades and they are likely to have kids with lots of problems including attendance. If you were the exceptional student who did well in such an environment (and I teach quite a lot of exactly such students) it is very often in spite of the sorts of disruption and time wasting that are common. TBH it's hardly surprising that middle class parents aren't queuing up to send their kids there. For one, often poorly performing schools are situated in areas of deprivation where there aren't a huge amount of middle class parents anyway. Since successive Govts have insisted on publishing league tables you can hardly blame parents for making use of them.

But again you'd be surprised at some of the parents who go to my dcs private school - probably the sort that you would assume would think of it as too much of a luxury. Lots of immigrant families in particular who for example may work two jobs or live with their parents indefinitely rather than buy their own home or who work 7 days a week in a corner shop or takeaway. Sometimes it IS about your priorities and cultural expectations and how hard you work rather than your own background if you really want something.

Dottoressa - I couldn't agree with you more. UQD does seem to go on about education being a luxury. Or rather 'private' education. I would love to send my ds to the state school I went to 35 years ago but that quality of education in my local area only exists in the private sector (state school playing fields long since sold off for housing).

Education is a right not a privilege. I am sure that there are many people who would love to educate their dc in private schools but genuinely cannot afford it. I also think there are many who have different priorities in life - nice flat screen tv, second car, foreign holidays etc etc. I'm related to some of those too and they cannot understand why I'm happy to go without all of that in favour of stumping up a monthly cheque.

As I've said before, I only have one priority in my life and that is my ds. Considering his early and appalling start in life I feel blessed every day that I get to make that choice.

Well I've looked at a state grammar school quite recently. This was partly born out of anxiety about work ... playing out various doomsday scenarios. Mostly I was interested because our local state grammar has really good academic results. Also it seemed a bit cavalier to be ignoring a flagship state grammar sitting on the doorstep.

I wasn't terribly enthusiastic. The academics were worse than the independent school, much worse when you factor in the level of selection. The sports were far far worse (sport is v important for DD in particular). The class sizes were bigger and the whole place seemed a bit rowdy and down at heel.

the mrc examples of misbehaviour in the state sector, even in good state schools is the same my children's father found when he taught in the state sector where he felt he was more of a policeman than teacher at times. I have concentrated on the fact I want my children who are reasonably bright educated with other bright children but there are a vast swathe of other advantages at private schools too and standing up when teachers enter the room, no graffiti, calling teachers sir etc all helps (I've had 3 teenagers are private schools and seen how awful all mid teens can be of course but the general ethos was pretty much well behaved in class most of the time).

MollieO - you are gleefully perpetuating tabloid stereotypes. Oh, yes, all these awful people spending money on plasma TVs and second cars... if only they made cutbacks they could afford private school... Rubbish, utter rubbish. And please do not continue to misquote me.

fivecandles, your earlier comment did sound snobby whether you meant it to or not.

Oh FGS at the flat screen television. How much does private education for two children cost per year? What proportion is that of median family income? Of course it's a luxury. And an expensive one.

You are fully entitled to spend your money as you see fit of course. But to suggest that everyone has that kind of money to spend is ridiculous.

My DH went through the private system, with a brief stint in the state sector and said the bad behaviour in the private school far eclipsed anything he ever saw in the comprehensive. Maybe he was just at a poor one, except that my brother, who went to one of the top boys' grammars in the country reports similarly. I've taught in state primaries for over 20 years and the behaviour is fine - the kids are expected to behave politely and respectfully and they do. But, as with everything, the nicest kids in the world will play up what they perceive to be a weak adult. And you get those everywhere, state and private.

Oh and I live right next door to Alderley Edge and most parents there wouldn't dream of sending their kids to the (independent) school that we use. Just shows that parents choosing private schools have a whole host of reasons behind that choice. For me it was not about a very exclusive, financially elite tiny prep which offered nothing more than segregation. Sadly, that senario seemstobe the one assumed about all parents who pay fees.

You dismissed the Fiona Millar comment yet that is the very situation you keep encouraging. Certainly your comment that if parents tried it they might like it and the fact that you go along with the idea that an influx of MC parents into the state sector would make it better for all, suggest that to me.

Anyway, this was just about making the reasons for my choice heard and to challenge the idea that it's all about elitist snobbery and not wanting to mix with ordinary kids. I don't want to play tit for tat or try to discourage you from your ideology.

Would be interested to know how many of those who feel that exposure to state edcuation would win everyone over have children on state secondaries or if they just have them in primaries. There is BIG difference in the quality of provision between them. Our local primaries are uniformly excellent - not so th secondaries.
When our local secondary teacher was interviewd recenrly, she was challenged about the standrard of behsiour of the children in her street as witrnessed by local residents whose cars arre vanadlised etc - her response was that the school comes down hard on that type of behaviour, and many of the children have ASBOs - like that is reassuring.... So it is not suprising that residents in surrounding streets avoid if they can fford to.

"Private school fees are beyond the reach of the vast majority of the population, financially. Indeed, I've argued before that there is business sense behind this. That makes them a luxury item for most people"

UQD - here is what you said or are you now quibbling at my use of "private education" rather than "private school fees"!

As for tabloid stereotypes, well no they are not. They are real life examples of people related to me. Neither they nor I read the tabloids. They have however made the choice of sending their dcs to mediocre schools in favour of everything I have listed. It seems more important to them for their children to have the latest gadget and for them to have new car, foreign holidays etc than to think about the quality of education their dcs are getting, even though they have told me the schools their dcs are at are 'rubbish'. Their word, not mine. Their choices, not mine.

I suggest that we draw a line under the private v state debate as we will never agree on what constitutes a luxury and what is an essential.

Plenty of women return to work at £25k a year and use 100% of their earnings for school fees for 2 children and live on the husband's salarly. Whilst I accept not all adults can earn as much as that it is the average wage so if a family can live on the other person's wage then surely most have the other's wage for school fees if they choose. Others of course couldn't earn £25k in a month of Sundays or they want to live in a bigger property, not prepared to downsize to pay fees etc.

London secondaries are not that good. Even the few South East grammars are really not up to the standards of the alternative private sector London schools like St Paul's, Habs etc.

In other parts of the country if you take say a standard Newcastle comp (I am from Newcastle) and compare it to the private schools we went to there (Royal Grammar N where my brother went) again ther eis really no comparison either. Newcastle gave up grammar schools in about 1969.

It's not the private vs state that's the issue here, though. It's whether or not private education is an essential. Of course it's not. Obviously you value it extremely highly, but that still doesn't mean it's essential. You are choosing it in preference to the state schools available to you. As I would too, if my local state schools were not excellent. As I said earlier, food is an essential requirement, but what kind of food, and how much, is open to choice - and affordability.

I think the argument is more about what is considered a luxury and what is not. UQD is firmly of the view that private education is a luxury. My point is that we all have a different view of what is a luxury to us and what is not. For me my ds's education isn't a luxury but my material goods (tv, car etc) are. For my sil the reverse is true.

clam the food analogy is a good one! Where we live we only have the choice of one state school which doesn't provide much in the way of holiday or wraparound care. When looking at childcare costs it worked out cheaper to choose the private school!

So, presumably UQD is saying (and I apologise if I'm attributing views to him that he hasn't expressed!) that to shop in Waitrose or M&S for fancier, more expensive food, when you could go to Asda or Lidl and buy the basics range like thousands of others, ought to be considered a luxury.

mollieo - yes, I was quibbling at the quoting of me as if I'd said "education is a luxury", hastily-amended to "oh, well, he means private education." That sort of thing puts the wrong idea in people's heads even if you correct yourself afterwards.

clam makes a good point - people are confusing how much they value something with whether or not it is, objectively, a luxury item.

Of course it's not essential! I certainly haven't suggested it is. All I suggested is that many people say they cannot afford it yet have 2 cars, nice hols, big house etc. People do prioritise.

I am not for one minute suggesting that everyone can afford it if they try to economise a little. That would be patronising and frankly untrue. I was just trying to say the myth that only wealthy families can manage to pay isn't always the case either.

My entire p/t salary will cover 2 lots of fees and I will need to work f/t to cover 3 so I will be working solely to pay school fees.

I'm doing exactly what Xenia suggests, working part time with 100% of my salary going to school fees. I've had children in both the state and private sector and while the latter is expensive, imo it continues to provide astonishingly good value for money.

"Hastily amended" no UQD my post is as I posted it. I wouldn't know how to change a post once it has been listed other than to ask MN to change the posting location which I did on another thread today. Not really sure what your point is. I've made my point and you have made yours ad nauseum. Everyone's circumstances are different and everyone's priorities in life are different. As I have said, nothing is more important in my life than my ds and nothing will change what I want to do for him in his life.

You may post all you like but your posts are personal and offensive and I for one have had enough.

mrc is spot on.

In what way, chocolate? Because if you disregard all the stuff that they would get anyway in a good state school, the extras on top that are attractive to you must be relatively more expensive (does that make sense?). I'm not asking you to compare it with a dodgy state primary (even if that was what you were avoiding when you enrolled in private). I mean in general terms.

I'm sure that's right, if a good state school is available to you.

When my daughter qualifies her starting salary will be about £65k (current economic climate permitting of course....) Now if she does well she may well earn several hundred thousand a year for a good few years, if not over £1m a year if she does extremely well.Her sister if she can find a job will be doing the same thing. I am not convinced they would have been as likely as women to have that earning potential if they hadn't been to the schools they went to since they were four. Obviously the fact they both look pretty good and are quite clever and have good personal skills also helps hugely (there are loads of unemployable monosyllabic but very clever graduates around) but the schooling in my view will pay off, not that I look at it as I spent £X and they will earn £X more over their 40 year careers. Even if they didn't earn a penny and just married now and made babies I am still happy to spent it. i don't want to spend money on myself. I don't want expensive cars and beauty treatments or whatever.So I was happy to spend it on education.

clam
but it rarely is in general terms.
I can get so many activities for my DCs as part of their school day and as organised after school clubs.
Many people can pay for their children to do swimming and gym ballet etc at local clubs. I could afford it but can't do it as I cannot transport and attend these with DS2 in tow.
My children can do all the activities they want to and i can be at home attending to DS2.
They would have considertably restricted lives ( comparably) if they did not get all these activities provided and supervised.

It improves the quality of all our lives massively.