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.

Well it does to a certain extent mean they have an (arrogant or not) 'sense of entitlement', as do the state school parents doing the same thing, in the sense that they are NOT (excuse caps don't know how to do bold) going to settle for the lowest common denominator school. So you could argue they have a 'sense of entitlement' over those parents who really don't mind, or care, which school their children attend.

I think you will find most parents who send their children privately to start with are very concerned with the kind of education their children receive and will feel they are 'entitled' to a decent alternative, should the former fall out of their grasp.

I think anyone who thinks otherwise are fooling themselves.

Well it does to a certain extent mean they have an (arrogant or not) 'sense of entitlement', as do the state school parents doing the same thing, in the sense that they are NOT (excuse caps don't know how to do bold) going to settle for the lowest common denominator school. So you could argue they have a 'sense of entitlement' over those parents who really don't mind, or care, which school their children attend.

I think you will find most parents who send their children privately to start with are very concerned with the kind of education their children receive and will feel they are 'entitled' to a decent alternative, should the former fall out of their grasp.

I think anyone who thinks otherwise are fooling themselves.

But, bagsforlife, the sense of entitlement you are referring to is the same one that all the advocators of state schools feel. Namely that their children are entitled to a decent standard of education.

That's not quite what UQD was getting at.

Actually I think there are some people, not the sort that post on MN, who don't actually care very much about their children's schooling, rightly or wrongly. But, you are right, the majority of people whether in the state or private sector are after a decent standard but, in a lot of cases, they are receiving it within the state sector.

I think what I mean is that a lot of people who use the private sector currently, are a tad hysterical about what the alternative would be if they had to use the state sector, and so they would go for the 'top' bog standard comp they could find. Whereas they might find the bog standard could accommodate their child quite happily.

However, I realise I have completely lost track of what the original title of this thread was..... ah yes, well, I think it probably will affect the private school applications this year!

I don't feel entitled, that I'm special and somehow my children have to have something better. I feel it's my job in a relatively free economy if I choose to to work really hard, pick high paid work and if I manage to work hard enough and earn enough be able through my earnings in various ways of which schooling is only one, improve the lot of my family. It's as much a sense of duty and obligation and doing the best for one's family as a sense of I am entitled to XYZ. Indeed I'd say state school parents are often those who think they're entitled to XYZ because it's free and they take it for granted. If they were made to pay they might appreciate schools more.

Well, it's hardly likely that on discovering that parents on discovering that they can no longer afford private school fees are suddenyl going to find the only schools with vacancies an enticing prospect - those were precisely the schools they were avoiding in the first place. Which brings me back to my original points:

1.) Private school parents by and largge do not need to be enlightened about the state sector. It's very often because they know it (in my case and myredcardigan and martianbishop intimately)that they avoid it.

2.) If they weren't going to private schools then you can bet they'd do their best to get their kids into the next best free option which means grammar schools, faith schools and oversubscribed schools thus making these schools even more oversubscribed and depriving those who most need a good education of a place.

Don't forget cases of kids being taken out of private school are going to be relatively rare (and it's highly unlikely they'd be taken out mid-year more likely that they'd give notice now and then move area, trawl the schools, go to church etc) but the number of people who were considering applying but now aren't may be more significant and this in no way is going to help the state sector since they're obviously going to fight tooth and nail to get into the best schools.

And that's the thing. When people argue about the difference it would make if the 10% of kids currently educated in private schools had to go to state schools they are ridiculously naive to assume they will go the worst performing schools and make a difference there they will obviously go to the best performing schools and make sod all difference except possibly to make them marginally more popular and thus reduce the chances of the less fortunate from getting in.

And this exodus from private schools sorry I'm still not noticing it - yes, a few will have to be withdrawn and applications will be down for a few years but this must have happened in the 80s and in the 30s and guess what? The private schools survived and developed and the state sector wasn't changed in the least.

Xenia - I totally disagree. Education should not be a privilege for the wealthy - it should be a right and ALL state schools should be good. . It's a fact that they are not, although a lot are very good - ask the parents of kids at Colyton Grammar or Wildern school in Hampshire for example.

But to say parents who don't pay don't appreciate it is a sweeping overgeneralisation. Why do you think that anyway?

And Unquiet Dad - I agree with you. Most kids go to private schools because their parents are well off. Some get bursaries and scholarships (though these don't normally cover all the fees) and some have well off grandparents etc (or their parents are in the forces and so they get fees paid etc). But the majority have parents who can pay. Sacrifice or not, if you can find £10K a year per child for a private education, out of taxed income, you are well off - that's a huge chunk of money. And you can't just cut other costs as some have suggested here - things like council tax, mortgage, utilities and car/house insurance have to be paid whatever. And food of course and the cost of getting to work and clothes. When you do the sums, you find that there's an awful lot which has to come before school fees. Not everyone is buying an IT handbag every month!

But ultimately it really depends where you live. I live in an area with decent state schools so I have the luxury of not having to worry about it. If my local school was a sink comp well I'd probably be doing all in my power to either move house or send my son privately too.

People apprecitae what they pay for. It's a market forces idea. It's not my invention. It's reality. Charge for something even just say £5 to go to the doctor and people appreciate it more and the people providing the service become more accountable. The state is not good at providing things and free markets work better. Although it is all going to be very interesting if we're moving to a more interfering state system and particularly if even more public sector projects ae going to be actioned to try to kick start the economy.

Many parents can live on the average wage of £25k and they use the other parent's £25k wage for school fees as others on the thread have shown but I certainly accept that most people at most private schools are not likely to be living as a family on one minimum wage.

All state schools will never be good because they educate the children of the disadvantaged and children with problems at home which cause disruption in class etc. There will always be pockets of deprivation and it's up to parents to ensure their children are kept away from that and live in areas which have good other children and good schools.

There are also some private schools which aren't very good and also private schools which are excellent but for children who aren't very clever. Basically lots of choice within the private system which shoudl be a nice incentive for women on here to found their own businesses are earn such a large amount of money they can afford fees. What is stopping you - go forth and make a million - the Xenia instruction of the evening. Post the school fees generation project business plans here by tomorrow morningeven if you're up all night doing it.

Xenia - I have no problem with people choosing to send their children to private schools. I went to state and private schools and my children have so far attended a mixture of state/private so I can see both sides of the state/private school debate.

I think it is natural to want to try and find the best school possible for ones child. However, I disagree with two commments in your last email:

"children with problems at home" - these children are in the private system as well as the state system...I would say the children in my DS state school (c of e primary) class come from happier family backgrounds than those in my DDs private school class. Being wealthy enough to educate your children privately does not mean you are a better parent. In DDs private prep school the parents often go off on holiday during term time leaving their children with a nanny..they are buying a good education but they are not supporting their children in other ways.

"There will always be pockets of deprivation and it's up to parents to ensure their children are kept away from that and live in areas which have good other children and good schools"

Surely it is our responsibility to elect governments who are going to tackle the pockets of deprivation and remove them. I completely disagree with this governments policy of paying parents in deprived areas to go back to work when their children are under five, by subsidising childcare etc. The money should be spent supporting these parents in other ways and improving nurseries for 3s and overs and schools in the deprived areas..reducing class sizes etc.

I wonnder if this is relevant to this discussion? Was svery shocked to see that in Richmond, chaeting has increased from 5-50 ( - that is those that were foun d out . Maybe Richmond parents feeing the pinch re school fees are turning to crime...?

I don't think Governments will ever remove relative poverty because mankind is not made to be the same and the poor will always be with us. Each individual parent does their best for their own child.

I am sure cheating is increasing.

Xenia on Fri 17-Oct-08 22:37:26
"I don't feel entitled, that I'm special and somehow my children have to have something better. I feel it's my job in a relatively free economy if I choose to to work really hard, pick high paid work and if I manage to work hard enough and earn enough be able through my earnings in various ways of which schooling is only one, improve the lot of my family. It's as much a sense of duty and obligation and doing the best for one's family as a sense of I am entitled to XYZ. Indeed I'd say state school parents are often those who think they're entitled to XYZ because it's free and they take it for granted. If they were made to pay they might appreciate schools more. "

Does it never ever occur to you that if everybody took your advice and got themselves a highly paid job, you would starve to death despite your earnings?

There would be nobody to grow your food, nobody to pack it, nobody to transport it to the shop and nobody to sell it to you. Also, nobody to look after your children or yourself in hospital, nobody to provide basic health care, nobody to keep the streets clean, empty the bins and keep the electricity running.

It seems like blatant hypocrisy to suggest that everybody can get a highly paid job when we all know that the highly paid jobs are only a small percentage of the jobs that need to be carried out to keep our society functioning at all. All highly paid jobs depend on an infra-structure of less well remunerated jobs.

A friend of mine once remarked. "How do you react when you see a mugging? Socialists always believe that the perpetrator needs help. Conservatives believe that the victim needs help. I'm a liberal so I think both need help".

On that basis, I am going to conclude that:

Miffy is a socialist. She believes that (a) pockets of deprivation can be removed and that (b) government will be the engine of their removal.

Xenia is a conservative. She believes that the poor are always with us. Nothing to be done about the poor.

'Entitled' is an odd word. Like Xenia I don't feel 'entitled' to a private school education or even a good state school for my kids any more than I feel 'entitled' to eat sticky toffee pudding from M & S. However, since it exists and I value it and I am able to pay for it I will have it.

Excuse me I am no socialist! I have never voted Labour and never will!

But I believe that one should think not just of ones own family but others too.

I find it odd that people can think that as long as they can afford private education it doesn't matter what the general state of education is like. This attitude appears selfish and short sighted, and not the opionion I would expect from somebody with a high IQ who has benefitted from private education.

whoops - should have written "opinion" - typo!

Still laughing about the socialist accusation..I live in Surrey FGS!

Erm, who is saying that it doesn't matter? Clearly it does matter, particularly as the state system educates 93% of our children.

Er - Xenia has said this hasn't she? 100s of times!

I'm amazed that many posters on here think that anyone could afford private schooling if they just 'cut back a bit' - on what exactly?

DH and I both work part time and between us we bring in the same as one decent salary (ie more or less what one of us was earning 10 years ago before kids cam along...)

However, we can't afford private education - a good friend of mind pays £15K PA for her two boys at private day school. How could we afford £15K?

Well, we could sell the house and downsize? We live in a 3 bed semi that we bought 10 years ago and have around £80K equity I guess, but our mortgage is £85K - what would we get with a smaller mortgage than that?

We could get a private rented house? but the rents I've seen are about the same as our mortgage payments.

We could get a council house? how, exactly?

We could sell our second car, a 10 yr old Clio? but then how would I get the kids to school, get to work, then back to afterschool club and then home again every day with no public transport to where I work?

Should I give up my job? But that's 50% of our income gone.

We could give up holidays? but the last time I got on a plane was 1999, so not many savings there.

The point is we're not low income by any means but there is probably only about £2K/PA worth of 'luxuries' I could give up - and I'm not being disingenuous. What do I give up - shopping at Aldi?

I couldn't save £15K a year however hard I tried, and if I could I somehow doubt if I would spend it on giving my children the marginal advantage that a private education would confer. Maybe I'm lucky that our local schools are generally good - but on the other hand I know quite a few people who send their children to private schools and on the whole their reasons are not 100%educational. One friend has a horror of her children developing a Brummie accent. Another wants her kids to be in school with 'people like us'.

On the other hand none of the people I know with children in private schools do actually seem to go without their second cars, big houses and several foreign holidays a year...

YOu could found a business and make £1m though couldn't you? Women do it. What is it that's stopping you doing it? Ex nurses found very successful nursing agencies. You don't need an oxbridge first to make a lot of money in the UK.

Someone above said well we need some people prepared to do the awful and low paid jobs to support others. That's true. I never said our society could function with only people at the top and no drones doing the dull stuff but for each individual woman on here I think she has more potential not to be in the dull low paid pond life type job and could if she set her sights higher seek to ensure she was better paid and in more interesting work.

I do care that the poor have the education to provide the skills that British employers need - to read, to spell and to ensure this country can maintain international competitiveness although I have no problems with our importing Chinese and Indians if the British are too thick to spell or whatever the relevant skills are.

What I certainly don't want is a society where we are all the same and all earn the same. How dull. I like it that people differ.
I don't want an indentikit1984 brave new worlds where every one has the same IQ, same schooling, same lives, same looks.

Christ Xenia - is that the way you see society, divided into people who either found a business and make £1 million, or have dull as ditchwater, pond life jobs? What about the vast majority of people (not just women) who are on middle incomes doing interesting, reasonably paid jobs which enable them to maintain some semblance of family life? Are they to be sneered at because they don't see making a million the be all and end all?

I don't want everyone to be the same either. But i do want equaliy of opportunity. I think you confuse equality with uniformity - a distinction most of us state educated kids managed to grasp in the 5th form.

Message withdrawn

Xenia - people DO pay for state schools. It's called taxation!