Who can afford private schools in the UK?

[wjchoihk]

Hi. I am not sure if this is an appropriate question to ask here. But I have always wondered how rich you should be to send children to private schools in UK. Fees are anywhere from 3000 up to 10000 per term. Even allowing for wide gaps in income, thinking of 'avearge' UK wage of 26,000 pound, math simply don't add up for a normal life with such high fees. I also know only 7% of children go private though.

How much of private parents live on "inherited" wealth and how much on simply superior current earnings? I have my kids at SW London privates but I wouldn't be able to afford this without current int'l expat package. Some parents at my kids' schools LOOK and ARE very very rich but most of them LOOK quite down to earth. But I can't ask....

Nobody's saying all parents who pay for schools are rich, exactly, but sometimes such parents do lay themselves open to the charge of not really having any concept of what real life is like for most people, when they make statements about 'priorities' and 'sacrifice'.

Surely only if you're claiming that all or most people could afford it through priorities and sacrifice? In a lot cases it's a valid point. For example, if I argued that most people I know who I know to be in a similar financial situation to me, could afford school fees if they changed their priorities and made some sacrifices, I would be correct. In reality, I know that many of them have chosed to 200k extra moving to a bigger house during their children's primary years. The house DH and I currently live in is perfectly adequate for a family of 4 (it has enough bedrooms), but it's small. We intend to stay (or trade in for something bigger further out), so we can afford fees. Most families on our street end up moving to a bigger house in the same area and not being able to afford fees. Fine, but it shows it often can be a matter of priorities.

On the flip side I'd also make the point that it's frustrating for people who are just about comfortably off but bust a gut to afford fees being lumped together and slated as rich privileged toffs who are completely out of touch with reality. I think you'll find that one of the reasons why some private-school-payers are often so keen to argue that it's often about sacrifice and priorities is because they're so sick of everyone automatically seeing them is privileged tw*ts and making assumptions and being ignorant of what real life is like for THEM. It cuts both ways. It's also particularly galling when all your efforts are also rewarded by people also accusing you (and your children) of snobbery, damaging the state system, and being stupid and deluded about state schools blah blah blah. No one seems to say 'oh, well done, you managed to send your kids private'. They either try to make you feel guilty for being able to, or they criticise you. It's amazing how much of an opinion other people are allowed to have about your choices, that you're mysteriously never allowed to have about theirs.

Seeker I think you are probably right. I suspect that I will struggle to find a thread about private education on here that doesn't get derailed by the anti-private brigade of which I know you are one. This is of course a shame.

we had a marketing talk at my place of work and the guy said that people needed to be earning at least 60K for one child and then say 100k for 2 so they would be classed as people who were successful in life.

Anyway (sounding like the silly woman in the harry enfield sketch) mine are doing ok in their comp.

If you work abroad on an expat contract you may well get school fees paid as part of the contract. We know many people in this position. Some send their DCs to boarding schools in the UK while some use local international schools.

"Saving up for two years worth for A levels is probably a much more manageable prospect than a full school career."

That is something we are looking at, or even for GCSE years as well. We couldn't afford to pay for 7 years though.

With hindsight, having DD at the local comp has been better for us as she has had some medical problems which meant spending a lot of time at the hospital. As the private school is 20 miles north of here and the hospital 20 miles south of here we couldn't have managed it logistically without DD missing even more school than she has done. (Comp is 4 miles west of our house)

You won't succubi- there are plenty. And many of them are about just the points you raise.

This thread was actually derailed, not by the anti private school brigade, but by the "everyone can afford it if they only try a little harder" brigade. Which you must accept is a deeply crass attitude to take.

Nit - were do I say that everybody has these views? So .. sigh right back at you.

No one seems to say 'oh, well done, you managed to send your kids private'

Why on earth would they, though?

The thing is, it's really quite rare to see a post about sending private which doesn't contain an explicit or sometimes implicit assumption or statement about state schools and education. In fact I think the decision is fundamentally such a statement. And, in turn, such statements are galling and difficult not to challenge.

Woozlebear, my thoughs exactly!

Well, but Totally, why would you speculate about starting a thread or threads with all these implied 'yous' in the title? That seems so narrow as an area of interest in the decision to use and support state education.

Why do you think your children are too good to consort with mine?
Why do you think your children need more than others?
Why do you view education as a purchasable commodity?
Why don't you care that not everyone can have the education you think is so great?

See, I wouldn't start a thread with any of those titles - it would just be stupid and pointless and designed to annoy.

Why on earth would they, though?

I dunno - maybe in the same way that private health insurance and a private pension is generally seen as desirable if you can afford it. Something worth making an effort for, an example of providing well for your family, even. But, for instance, everyone I work with snaps these up but would be chippy about private education. Private education seems to be the only area of life where spending money because you believe it will give your children an advantage in life is frowned upon.

Haven't read the whole thread but... We have chosen only to have dc and started to save when he was born! Probably only just for secondary, and hopefully will have enough to pay for fees in a lump sum and negotiate a rate.

Seeker we are simply not going to agree.

I have already set out my reasons for joining this thread and it is not to enter into a debate over the comment you have highlighted which is quite frankly either badly put or if put correctly so obviously wrong that it simply doesn't require this type of in-depth dissection.

See, in that post there are a number of things I have a problem with, Woozle. You describe private school as 'providing well for your family', which does suggest you think children not at private schools aren't being provided for, or that their parents aren't doing such a good job. You describe people who are opposed to it as 'chippy', which is dismissive of very genuine ideological opposition to private education.

Why do people who don't pay school fees feel they are the best people to comment on the question "how do people afford private education"

Perhaps because some of the answers given: 'we have less nice to haves such as holidays, new clothes and meals out' do not actually answer the question satisfactorily. The amount our family spends on new clothes, holidays and meals out in total would not put one single child through private education in London. The answer given just does not answer the question.

Presumably you afford private education by having an income big enough over and above your outgoings.

There's a poster below who poo-poos the idea that two working parents who had to pay nursery fees could therefore afford private education. But it isn't like that. During those fee paying years you don't replace your household goods, you leave the all-important (for maintenance) external decorating or the threadbare roof, you don't replace the ancient car, you NEVER buy new clothes...you run up some credit card bills, you don't pay into a pension. You live in a way which isn't sustainable longer term. And anyway, school fees increase, and come with expenses that nursery does not. Trips, uniforms, PE kits, sports equipment, maybe school meals if not all-inclusive.

I have no chip on my shoulder, I am happy with the state schooling my DC enjoy, I am not 'anti private education' or those that choose it. But I do not wish to be told it is 'all a matter of priorities'.

seeker - fees cost between £9k to £15k for most day schools. Assuming we are talking about one child, a family needs a gross income of about £40k pa in order to cover fees, mortgage, bills, food and other essentials. There isn't much left over for a new car every 3 years oir a long haul family holiday every year. This is where the 'sacrifice' and 'priority' kicks in.

No one is suggesting that a person working as a van driver earning £20k can go private if only they prioritize and make sacrifices. So it's kind of ridiculous to interpret people's comments as such and use this to kick off a series of eye rolling posts.

"maisiejoe123"

The problem isn't the quality of teaching in most state schools. It's the amount of individual attention.

Children who attend private school will get more of the teacher's time, simply because there are sometimes fewer than half the number of children per teacher, and because there are fewer disruptive children and children who are struggling academically taking up the teachers' time.

"It's also particularly galling when all your efforts are also rewarded by people also accusing you (and your children) of snobbery, damaging the state system"

Many parents choose to privately educate because they don't want their children learning alongside disadvantaged children who don't achieve at a high level.

And 'creaming off' the most motivated, brightest children with the most supportive and involved (and wealthy) parents DOES damage the state system. Schools rise and fall not just on the quality of the staff, but on the input of the children and the parents.

The thing is - honestly. For those who think that the private system is the Devils Work....

What would happen if you won the lottery. It is easy to preach and say. unfair advantage, stuck up toffs etc when you have no opportunity to go private.

But - what if you came into some money. Are you really saying you would not look at the private schools. I suspect some who are especially against have NEVER set foot into one of the top private schools. They dont know anyone who has gone to one. Well - perhaps they arent what you think they are...

Like various members of the Labour government Preach all you like about the state system but their children wont use it, Ruth Kelly, Diane Abbott et al have had no issues with using whatever means they have at their disposal, be it influence, money etc to use them.

If you had a failing school and you won the lottery would you look at private or would you move to a more desirable area and go for one of the outstanding state schools that only people who can afford the house prices are able to apply for....

Erm, I have seen it suggested in as many words that a couple who are both on the minimum wage could find school fees if they cared enough, Totally.

We don't have a new car every three years or a long haul family holiday every year - I've never considered we're 'sacrificing' anything, just that's not something we do. I never realised how deprived I was! We do have a gross income over £40k though, I wonder why we don't have a spare 15 floating around every year?

"Assuming we are talking about one child, a family needs a gross income of about £40k pa in order to cover fees, mortgage, bills, food and other essentials."

Shelter has estimated that in London families need a household income of 50K a year to be able to rent a two bedroom flat and cover all their living costs without subsidy.

I imagine this applies to large parts of the SE. I'm in a horrible part of London and a two bedroom flat here costs 1.2K per month.

Nit I didn't describe all people as chippy, just specifically people I work with, who I know (and presumably you don't).

As for 'providing well for your family' a) I didn't actually say I see it that way, I said I find it odd that private pensions and health insurance are generally seen that way, while education is not. To extrapolate from that that I also think that people who don't are not providing well for their family is absurd. Although I admire your effors to provoke an argument and dismiss all my points by making me look unpleasant.

My point was not whether or not it's a matter of providing well, it's the logical inconsistency of some things being perceived that way, and others not. A point which I notice you have managed to totally ignore despite it being the sole point of my post.

Well, if you can call not having a long haul holiday every year a "sacrifice" you must have led a very sheltered life, that's all I can say. There were children at our primary school who "sacrificed" their own dinner so they could pay for their child to go swimming.

Oh wow Maisie, you have bowled me over with the force of your rhetoric there and made a suggestion never heard before on MN....

I would not privately educate on a lottery win, inheritance, plain or train. I do not like them, Sam, you see!

So if I went to a top private school, I might see they're not 'what I think they are'. Well, what I think they are is institutions probably really quite passionate about the education they provide, as well as perhaps the pastoral care, values, etc etc. And I think they make that service available to those who can pay and/or pass an exam, and not the rest.

I think they are what I think they are.

PLAIN???? I mean plane, obv.

But Woozle I doubt your colleagues would consider their response, or their views, as 'chippy', would they? It's hardly objective truth!