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....

Lower than a baked bean? What kind of smack talk is that?

Lower than whale shit is a better insult in my opinion

Pugs, because you have extrapolated your own situation and said that it applies to all non-selective areas, perhaps?

We can but MN without seeker would be a bit boring.

A Labour MP?? She has just said she could pay for a private education. Tbh -we will never know whether that is true or not. She is totally opposed to private eduction (but she is totally opposed to selective education and she uses that and would have used it once again if her 2nd child had passed the 11+)

Interesting that her beliefs didnt include not allowing her daughter to take the 11+. And of course when you take the exam you could pass....

Lets not forget though, she has been 'forced' to do all of this!

Lower than a common baked bean is an apt literary quotation

I could do worse, if I chose, of course.

Anyway ladies. Off to bed and Happy Valentine's Day!

Ok but since I don't understand your insult it was kind of pointless.

What TOSN said.

And I was just in the middle of posting a long post backing up your £40K gross theory and some other arguments (reiterated) about my SEN son's excellent care and inclusion in his fee-paying school and my right to pay for that out of our modest-to-some income/savings.

But this thread really has turned all unneccessary.

I am just trying to point out to Seeker & others that a good education does not necessarily fall in your lap in her magical, idealist non-selective system! And she shouldn't be so quick to judge those of us that opt out if we have the money to.

I do think it's fascinating that people think "selective education" means grammar school. Conveniently forgetting that the remaining children are just as much selected for the secondary modern as they think their children will be selected for the grammar school!

I would like it if you didn't speculate about my inability to move. But I can't stop you. And if anyone actually wants to talk properly about this, I am happy to. But I'm not going to engage with people who appear to have switched their brains off.

Ffs.

pugs that's one thing. But for TBS (and others?) to keep going on about what seeker said about not being able to move and not believing after she had posted implying she had a very good reason for that which would embarrass people who's disbelieved her was, IMO, downright nasty.

Seeker, that was my point! ALL schools in a selective area are competing for your business whether grammar or sec modern!!! So it raises the standards in most of those schools.
We have no choices - the local comp, or private if you can afford it! What's wrong with choosing the latter in our circumstance?

Pugsandseqls- if I understood your last post, I would try and reply to it. But I don't. Sorry.

Well, seeker, I like and admire your cyber personality (and probably your real personality - but I'm always a bit wary online).

I try not to let those comments cut too deep.

Like I said upthread, I don't like to be told that I am being insensitive to poor people by describing not having a long haul holiday as a 'sacrifice' by someone who spends a lot of time complaining about how her son has to go to a school in a WC part of town.

Books - I am not condoning the bitchiness! Just sitting on the fence as I enjoy debating but hate arguing.

Seeker - genuine question:

Have you any like-minded friends/parents who have seriously considered opting out of the 11+? Bear with me:

I'm a semi-grammar county, where (trust me) there is a genuine mix of comps, sec mods and grammars. And in the 'grammar' towns, many parents have in the past decade or so started to elect away from the grammars for various reasons (most grammars are single-sex and honestly, most people I know prefer co-ed; or because of better facilities - our grammars have much lower funding than the other schools - etc etc etc): such that in some of these areas, the sec mods are now more like true comps (and some of the grammars have many spaces and /or accept children from far outside catchment). Of course it becomes a virtuous circle wherein the sec mods/comps get better and better results with a proper 'top set' and then they attract more and more 'motivated' children and parents. One of these 'sec mods' has had between 90-100% 5 A-Cs and is the first choice above the grammars in this particular small town.

Just wondered if you thought something like could ever happen in Kent?

I don't honestly think the secondary modern or the grammar school is competing for my business- the 11+ decides where you go. No competition wt all. So really it is exactly the same situation as the catch-all comprehensive you mentioned- except on two different sites.

90-100% for years...that should say (and not with 'equivalents').

"someone who spends a lot of time complaining about how her son has to go to a school in a WC part of town."

I'm sure you could find things I have actually said to attack me about- please don't make things up.

My point is Seeker, that you are probably too close to the system to realise that it improves education in the main to be in a selective state system! Areas without s selective system provide far fewer opportunities. Before I moved out of a selective area, I had no idea about the lack of choice most have when it comes to schooling. Some have tried lottery systems to try to make things fairer. I'm not sure if it has been successful

If a selective system improved education, then my bit of Kent would have better results than comprehensive areas with a comparable catchment. It doesn't.

Neither selective state or normal state are 100% effective in being fair to all, but IMO selective state has more of a chance for most without playing postcode lotteries & house price competitions!