School fee hike - freaking out slightly

[wingingthings]

I'm under no illusion that we haven’t been very lucky to be able to send our 2 children privately. However, we've done this without foreign holidays, new cars and making sacrifices- we shop at Aldi etc. Choices we've made happily and it's been fine. We also worked on the basis of 5% inflation each year. We just got the fees increase letter of 12.5%. I'm freaking out as this pushes us very close and will still have another 5 years to go. Curious as to others experiences this year??

We can not say that every state school will have financial difficulties. I work for public sector finance. I know some grammar/state schools have reserves. There are many ways to have an income stream, such as donation, events, and fundraising. My kids went to outstanding state primary; the school even provided almost instruments for every kid to bring home(Cello, violin...). Government funding was good, plus all other incomes. Parents are willing to contribute occasionally. If schools have good treasury and finance management/budget, it should not have a significant impact.

@pimplebum oh shut up it's not a race to the bottom. They have money and could obviously use it to have a more luxurious lifestyle. They've chosen to spend it on education, they have every right to worry and have a moan. They're just pointing out that the money is a sacrifice and it's not a drop in the ocean.

Not a surprise but have they been increasing at the 5 percent in recent years that you budgeted for - the saving from that should sort of help

@YouSoundLovely exactly. I do think that's a far better system than whatever this country has. This idea that private education is only for the very very rich is quickly becoming a reality. The middle classes have long been out priced. Now the upper middle is struggling too.
Subsidising isn't a bad thing, it opens up choice for a lot of parents. A choice they already pay for when they buy up housing next to good schools.

I suspect it's a question of whether taxpayers' money should be focused on overall outcomes or individual opportunity which is deeply steeped in political ideology.

@JassyRadlett Exactly. And it's also how much control the government want to lose in a way. In the state's you have far more choice as to how you spend the $ you put towards education. Families can use them to enroll their children in online schools or even home ed co-ops. In Poland there's an option to send your child to a private school and the government sends their funding to that school. There's a huge controversy there as parents with money are getting any diagnosis they can, the school than claims additional SEN funding from the government. It's making the SEN pot smaller and smaller for state schools.
There's no perfect system but it's a universal truth that parents want choice. In the UK that choice is reserved for those with money.

I think the point is that if parents were complaining about state provision on mass to e.g. the government, they might be persuaded to invest more in education.

But I don't think that's the case for the current government.

Schools themselves are very limited in what they can do, really.

I’ve thought about this a fair bit as I’ve used both sectors but what I think gets overlooked somewhat in this argument is how much cohort impacts outcomes.

Ie you can absolutely get a state school with better results, the funding isn’t higher but the intake is different. This doesn’t lead to pressure on the government though. Just more jostling for a place via house price.

@MarshaBradyo Its an uncomfortable topic but in my opinion cohort, after leadership, is the biggest determining factor in the schools success.

It's the main reason I think we need really wholesale admissions reform - no faith admissions (which distort catchments and are de facto social selection), no feeder primaries, no grammars, and preferably far fewer private schools so that schools much better reflect the areas they're situated in. I'd also go for something like a system of lotteries for different catchment radiuses, a quota reserved for FSM pupils, and other demographic smoothing factors to deal with house price selection. But I do think that house price selection is exacerbated by academic selection and faith selection reducing the number of schools/places that are on offer to many people - making the competition for those places even more fierce.

Who would say no to free tutoring?

You might be surprised. For the same reason some parents put in a lot of effort and others don’t.

I’m not ashamed to be British but I’m weary at the idea those who do put in effort can soak up all those who do not, usually via more taxes.

If it gets even more pronounced people will try to avoid it and things will get worse for those who can’t.

@FacebookFun The only people that say yes to free tutoring are the ones that come from homes where education is important. You'd be very, very surprised how many turn down free tutoring.

I think we have to get away from the idea that a good education is necessarily about outcomes.

If you're measuring by outcomes, then obviously schools that select in various ways (this can be academic, financial or social) will almost definitely have better outcomes.

But if you look at progress or other, harder to define things, then I think it's different.

But most of the things the poster I quoted was mentioning weren't about cohort. Some of them were things that might be impacted by funding.

Obviously some of the things are difficult for any school though.

For every parent who wants more homework, there's another who wants none. For every parent who wants more maths, there's another who wants more art, etc.

I'd argue cohort above leadership.

If you're really, really selective, then you're always going to exceed a school that truly takes everyone- assuming you mean raw outcomes and not progress.

Ours was an increase of 11.5% this year. A lot of these schools are going to have to be very careful or many people will not be able to afford it and they’re going to start losing kids.

Last year we offered free tutoring to students through the government catch up program. I signed up to offer it as a teacher, and was allocated 5 students who were identified as being likely to benefit.

Only one of them attended regularly. Her friend then asked if she could come as well, and we were able to offer her a space.

The others, we never heard from.

It's obviously complex and for various reasons I could only offer one specific day- students might have another commitment on that day. It's after school, some have jobs or caring responsibilities that make that impossible. One of the identified students had health issues and was already struggling with just an ordinary day in school.

But people do turn it down (other teachers had about the same take up rate, so it wasn't something personal about me!).

But if the school's energy bills and staffing costs have gone up, what's the alternative for them?

@Smartiepants79 I think parents need to be careful and keep a close eye on school finances otherwise they may find their kids school suddenly closes. This is happening so much at the moment.

The CCP has actually tried to ban tutoring on the grounds that the cut throat education culture in Chinese cities is shredding the fertility rate! They are certainly not making it free.

If fewer parents are able to afford private schools, costs are going up but things are unsatisfactory in state schools, it might make sense for private schools to create additional revenue streams to meet those needs. There are a lot of middle class parents who are worried about issues at their child’s state school, do not have the money or financial confidence to them to private schools, but might be happy to pay for tutoring and enriching extra curriculars, educational summer childcare/summer day camps etc at private schools.

There is a school of thought which says that in the long run, it might be better for charitable status to be removed from private schools, because it would remove the need to keep acting like charities and allow private schools to innovate as businesses, with no restrictions on their activities.

The vast majority of private schools in London run all those things already. Every single one near us runs holiday clubs and rents out their gyms in the evening on a membership basis.
A lot have become for profit too, with many being taken over by investment companies. Only the big names are staying as charities and even those are slowly dropping that.

It's not the end of the world to send your children to a state school!

I'm not for one second suggesting that it is OP. I am struggling with the thought of pulling them from school where they are incredibly happy and settled. It's not the thought of state versus private (neither is this why I kicked this thread off) but the disruption, lack of Places and over subscribed local Schools. My post was for others facing similar issues.

I have family in New Zealand. The private schools are partially state funded and uptake is high. There are scholarships and for some fees are also means tested.
I don't think it is unreasonable model.
It takes pressure of the state system.

In my cousins example, he and his wife both work longer hours than state schools are open but private matches.
One of them would have to make a career sacrifice or employ before and after school care if they went state.
It would actually cost them more and that is without matching the sports and extra curricular opportunities the private school gives.