DC's and private school: do you explain to them about school fees?

[wanderings]

I was asked by my parents which secondary school I wanted to go to, after a few visits to various schools. I happened to choose the one which was a private school, with an entrance exam. I didn't actually know that my parents were paying fees for it until I was in year 8. (Should I have known about this, aged 11?) And I didn't realise until much later what a small percentage it is of children who do go to private schools.

While in a way I understand my parents' decision not to let the issue of fees influence which school I liked best (they rarely explained about big money matters unless I asked), I'm not sure if ignorance was bliss, and I can't help wondering if I had known from the start that it was an expensive school, if I might have worked harder in my earlier years there. (I didn't really start working hard until year 10; there were lots of battles between me and parents about schoolwork!)

I was very aware of the fees when I went to private school and that my parents had to scrimp to pay them. It weighed on my mind as the fees went up a lot in 6th form and Govt withdrew grant funding. My father used to go on about it a lot and they nearly pulled me out of the school in 6th form.

That said, I dealt with the 'guilt' worked very hard for no pay on my father's farm outside term times and I calculated that my labour was worth the fees they were paying. My parent also paid nothing towards my university and I still worked for free for my father outside term during my university years so I more than paid it all back.

My own children know we pay fees and DS1 recently chose not to go to a high league table boarding school in 6th form partly because he wants us to pay for his university instead. He decided to stay at a much cheaper lower league table day school. We were happy to pay for it all but he thought it a waste - especially as he would not get a scholarship at his new school and he didn't think it was worth the extra money.

We do ask our children to work hard at school and make the most of the opportunities in return for the money we pay but,, that said, we do not overburden them about the fees. It is our choice to send them private.

Please don't say "indy"

Happygardening,

Just wondering - do you feel that the fact that your DS's school is predominantly boarding may, to some extent, limit the awareness of / contrast between the different families whose sons attend it?

I ask mainly because, in my personal experience, being from a really very impoverished family on a scholarship to a boarding school was relatively 'easy' - in the sense that no-one could see my home, the street I lived in, our belongings or lack of them. With Saturday school, matches and uniform for church on Sundays, even the meagreness and oddness of my 'home clothes' was only visible to the relatively few girls who shared rooms with me in my boarding house. Within that 'bubble', the differences between us were significantly 'flattened'.

In a private day school, differences between cars, houses, birthday parties, where people live etc etc are perhaps much more 'visible' to pupils and their parents alike?

I don't think it is expecting psychic powers, personally. People on these boards know that children with special needs exist and that some of them are allowed into private schools.

Anyway, I'll leave the thread with this lighthearted and maybe interesting anecdote.

I work in a (naice, sought after) state secondary school where a small number of younger children seem to be under the illusion that it is a private school.

I assume their parents have deliberately let them think this or maybe they've come to this belief by themselves. Who knows?

Maybe it's because Ive got boys or maybe DS2'sn spent so long in the indepennt sector that he just takes it all so much for granted and doesn't feel a need to talk about it but I have to work hard to extract that kind of information I can't see it being voluntarily talked about! In fact DS2 particularly when he was younger has been in the past questioned by his friends who don't board and are in both sectors about what he does at school. I've always interested in how reluctant he was to talk about it. Mind you most of those questions were about lessons primarily math do you do it from 8 in the morning till 8 at night, what teachers did when they were not in lessons, was the food better than there's, did they get croissants and coco pops for breakfast, and were you allowed extra sweets because you weren't at home.

I think what people do for a living and how much they earn is a very adult concern.

Young people seem to show interest in those parents who do something interesting ( as they see it).

So I garner more interest than DH and the other lawyer/banker/doctor/ academic parents.

And an actor, sports person, musician etc brings in the real Kudos. .

teacher interesting question. I suspect that most of the boys know that we are not on the mega wealthy end of the income bracket. We are not hard up by any stretch of the imagination we are comfortably off, we're not dressed in Primark and we don't shop in Lidl, we attend the theatre opera art exhibitions etc but we pay fees out of our earned income so we live accordingly, average house, normal priced holidays in Europe, average cars etc, so for example we don't ski partly because I fall like a sack of spuds and would break something, secondly I hate cold weather but also because we would rather channel our spare money into other things we don't have enough to do both, DS2 said we are the only people he knows who don't ski. I know boys Google their homes, some have Philip Patek watches and Saville Row suits, many have very large homes (which of course he's been too) and multiple other houses around the world, we have 1 home, other boys have large amounts in their current bank accounts DS2 get 60 PCm and pays his phone out of it. So I don't think he or others oblivious to the fact that some are mega rich and others are comfortably off. The good about boarding is when you live alongside others 24/7 that you learn that it's not money and possessions that makes you a decent likeable person.

Ok so 3DC here, all at independents. 2DS at RGS Guildford - robust, down to earth, no pandering but yes also selective academically ( as an aside not a hot house!). I wouldn't call circa £17k each a year cheap - but appreciate it's all relative. Mixture of parents - lots of 2x working parent families in professional jobs. However most parents are 45+ and therefore will largely have bought property before prices rocketed. DC3 still at prep school and again a mix of families and a wider range of abilities. We both work, no rich relatives (far from it) and whilst I appreciate we are well off we're not super wealthy by any standards. In just the same way as State schools aren't all the same nor are those in the Independent sector.

Happy, yes, I can imagine that Google and social media make it harder to 'hide' differences in wealth than 35 years ago!

I don't think that boarding made differences between family backgrounds completely invisible, but I do think it had a significantly 'flattening' effect. Others will have been aware that I was not in the 'rich' bracket, and was aware that others were much better off than us, but the vast gulf between me and even the 'comfortably off' existence that you describe would not have been particularly noticeable.... oddly, not as noticeable as e.g. a different accent would have made me.

We send 4 children to private school but i love Lidl and Aldi ( high no. Of 4×4's in our Aldi car park).My teenage daughters also adore Primark.However my husband does have a Patek Philippe watch - bought,not inherited
It's so interesting how we all categorise wealth/money in the UK

"The issue is not that there are wrongs to right in the Indy sector"

I couldn't disagree more.

There is a cohort of privately educated children in the UK - most already pretty much at the head of the queue when it comes to the handing out of brains, ability, health and supportive family background, who have on average more than TWICE AS MUCH SPENT on their education as children further back in the queue. The fortunate few, as a group, having had much more spent on them, go on to hoover up a massively disproportionate number of places at the best universities, and then go on to take up a massively disproportionate number of positions of power in industry and politics. How can you look at this situation and not see that there are rights and wrongs? Or is massive inequality of opportunity acceptable as long as your child is at the winning end.

Alan Bennett : "Private education is not fair. Those who provide it know it. Those who pay for it know it. Those who have to sacrifice in order to purchase it know it. And those who receive it know it, or should. And if their education ends without it dawning on them, then that education has been wasted".

here

I think this thread is absolutely fascinating - the views that talking about fees and money is somehow 'vulgar', the insistence that it's all about 'individual choice' while steadfastly ignoring the elephant in room, which is that the huge amount of inequality in educational provision (both the state and private sector) is really bloody damaging to society, and a crying shame.

But minifingerz their parents spend twice as much out of already taxed income. In a free society their cannot be a dictat about how people spend their money. I would happily pay more tax if I was sure it would be wisely spent.

My dh and his father went to the same primary school as Alan Bennett. There they learnt about the importance of aspiration. The year after dh went to grammar school it became a comp. Within ten years it was so badly failing it closed.

DH's father aspired to get his children into the grammar, dh aspired to give his children an excellent education - our children are liberal arts linguists - Tiffin did not tick their boxes. The only alternative that we felt was academically rigorous enough was independent.

I wonder how Alan Bennett would have felt in today's world or even if he had had children to educate in Yorkshire in the 1970s. The world has greatly changed since he were a lad in Armley.

happygardening For "profiteroles* read trendy building by Hopkins, Farr Pavilion, sports hall, new Victorian chapel to supplement the Abbey, all unnecessary frills and luxuries, vanity, vanity.

Fee rises are spent on these things, which the super rich want but the rest of us don't thanks, not if it means we might be able to afford the fees.

As I say, I know a number of teachers who are disillusioned by all this. It needn't be this way.

The only alternative that we felt was academically rigorous enough was independent But you are still ignoring the elephant.

I wonder how Alan Bennett would have felt in today's world or even if he had had children to educate in Yorkshire in the 1970s. The world has greatly changed since he were a lad in Armley

He actually made the remarks quoted a couple of years ago. It is completely undeniable. The point is that the current situation is unfair. And not until everyone is prepared to accept that can things change.

minifingerz I couldn't agree with you more actually. Two points to consider:

The abolition of state grammar schools in my view limited social mobility of those who were academically brightest from all social classes

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of some state schools being insufficiently ambitious for their pupils - in my personal exoerience: a state infant school head unwilling to promote full scholarship to local prep school, and FE college teachers unwilling to support Oxbridge applications. Concentrating on the D/C GCSE pupils at the expense of the A* potential students is another one. I read recent,y here a mother stating her child had no support with a Uni application on the grounds that if the teachers helped and the student got no offers then it would open the teacher up to criticism!

I seriously cannot understand why the state sector don't look collective,y at what the private sector do well and ask how they can replicate that rather than just wishing the independent sector didn't exist. This may improve the social mobility that us so lacking presently

What is unfair is that standards in the state sector are so low and so politicised. That is what works against the success and achievement of pupils, not the fact that a very small proportion of children attend independent schools.

BertrandRussell. My apologies, what is it that I'm ignoring please?

"What is unfair is that standards in the state sector are so low and so politicised."

Shall we be a little more precise here?

Do you mean that 'the absolute standards achieved by some children in some state schools are lower than those achieved by some children in some private schools?'

Have you ever thought about progress? Or comparing groups of children from like backgrounds in different school sectors (ie comparing the results ONLY from children from wealthy, well-educated homes - typical of pretty much all private schools - in the different sectors)?

To genuinely compare schools in different sectors, you have to correct for an awful lot of variables that have an influence on absolute results:

• Parental levels of education
• Parental levels of wealth
• Security of housing / food / support
• Range of ability on admission
• Number and diagnosis of children with SEN

To be absolutely fair (scientist here), you may also want to correct for

• Amount of money spent on the education of each pupil

Homeonthesea is stating the truth.Huge efforts go into propping up the least academic whereas there is no push ensuring very capable pupils attain good grades.My eldest had virtually no homework for the first two years of our local comprehensive.How will they learn for exams if they're not used to working at home?By year 9 she was well behind her private school peers.But she was always praised at parents evening when I knew she was coasting.
My current year 7's have 3 subjects a night.Contrast that with homework once weekly in year 6 that was never marked by the lazy class teacher in their state school.

mimi I've never once ever on any thread on MN said it was right that so few have so much. Is it the fault of those of us who choose to pay that ther is inequality in education? I don't think so it's the fault of our governments who ultimately we've voted in. It would appear that most people in the the UK want lower taxes well that comes at a price whether it be the amount that's spent on education or the amount spent on the NHS, it appears that most people are supporting another completely pointless and eye wateringly expensive bombing campaign but still want to pay less tax, well people need to wake up it's not possible to have low taxes, bomb countries we don't like and then have very well funded state provision for education health social care etc.
getoff I don't shop in Lidl or Aldi because I believe passionately in shopping locally, and buying local produce, supporting British farmers in particular dairy farmers and also buying fair trade from round the world wherever I can, I also only purchase sustainablly sourced fish. I don't smoke drink alcohol , or take recreational drugs, I dont subscribe to a gym or pay for digital TV I fact I don't have a TV, or drive a 4x4, my luxury in life is the sort of food I like to buy. My friend I walk my dogs with who's also not hard up loves Aldi. But let's no delude ourselves Aldi and Lidl are cheap and many shop at them solely for that reason. For the same reason I don't shop I Primark if a T shirt costs 50p them the poor sod making it is being exploited. If we're discussing inequalities and fairness in our world the exploitation of workers in developing countries by the wealthy ones has to be tight up there on the top of the list. Remember we're rich because they are poor.

"What is unfair is that standards in the state sector are so low and so politicised"

Could you say some more about this, please?

I would absolutely agree that there are some poor state schools - often not those with the lowest absolute results (which are often in areas of very high deprivation, low parental education, poor housing, very low ability on admission and very high SEN), but those 'naice' schools that rely on intake for good results and do not push for maximum progress.

However, I can also easily name a number of equally poor and poorer private schools, which rely entirely on intake to deliver adequate results, where teaching is lacklustre and unimaginative, and where anyone who is in any way difficult to teach opr has SEN is managed out.

The main unfairness in the state system is the consistent lack of consistence.

Provision is almost random and parents have little control over what is actually provided.

"My current year 7's have 3 subjects a night."

Gosh. Don't they work hard during the school day then if they have to do so much at home?

Getoff,

I recently heard of my Y10 able DS's target grades for GCSE. The school (comp) chooses to go with the most ambitious targets thrown out by the software used, acknowledging that this puts both them and the pupils under greater pressure but believing it to be better than choosing 'the easy path'.

I don't think that target grades of A* in every subject, and an 8 and a 9 in the two subjects he'll be doing the new GCSEs in are evidence that there is "no push ensuring very capable pupils attain good grades"? Nor did his primary, pushing him to get L6 in Maths the first year it was introduced, and ensuring that he made 3 levels of progress in al;l subjects between Y2 and Y6 was exactly 'accepting low standards'?