Are Private Schools worth it?

ReportInvestor

Here are some hard figures about the inflation busting rise in private school fees

The cost of sending children to private day schools in the country has risen by more than three times the rate of inflation over the last 20 years, according to research from the Halifax bank in August 2005.

"In 2005 the average annual cost of educating a child in a private day school was 8,388 pounds against 1,806 pounds in 1985 -- an increase of 364 percent against a 103 percent hike in inflation.

Parents who sent their children to board also felt the impact on their wallets.

Annual boarding fees in 2005 of 18,282 pounds were more than four times the 4,045 annual cost in 1985.

Over the last 20 years average annual earnings in real terms grew by just 48 percent against a real term rise in private school fees of 129 percent.

School fees now account for 36 percent of the average annual income of 27,452 pounds compared with 22 percent of 1985 average earnings....."

## - So yes, there have been recent one off factors e.g. changes to the funding of teachers' pensions (transferred to our Council Tax bills re state schools) but the long term trend is evident.

And it is unlikely to ever fall below wage inflation, as opposed to inflation because, as pointed out by earlier posters, that is the biggest bill for schools.

mike_paterson

gizmoleeds wrote:

So because your private school has put up its fees by 8% per annum you are assuming that (a) this is entirely down to regulations, bureaucracy and insurance - not to do with profit or the need for extra resources these days (such as hundreds of expensive computers which need replacing every few years); and (b) that state schools must have suffered the same costs.

Yes - it is a non-profit organisation with charitable status and I do get to see the accounts. Most of the extra equipment has been purchased through fund raising and donations. and Yes the state schools have suffered the same increased burden and costs.

gizmoleeds wrote:

Like I have said, every other school in my area has been rebuilt - the others have mostly had some sort of renovation, expansion or partial rebuilding. I would be very surprised if you could find me many schools in the UK without brand new ICT suites, without electronic whiteboards, without new sports equipment and books etc.

As I said - you are lucky. That certainly is not the case in Essex.

Local paper published this on 12th Jan 2006 : THE full extent of overcrowding at Essex schools has emerged after it was revealed there are 669 temporary classrooms in operation across the county read the article here


My guess is that you are in the North, or Scotland. If you are in England you are likely to be in a strong labour region. ( I just realised that in fact you are probably in Leeds by your username) as Labour has diverted a lot of money to Scotland and to its heartland.

gizmoleeds wrote:

It was not announced recently, and the policy is to rebuild or refurbish (obviously not all schools need rebuilding) - it has been Labour policy since at least the 2001 election (possibly 1997), and like I say, my area has already seen the excellent fruition of this policy.

Again you are lucky That is just not the case here in Essex - read this article published Tuesday, January 3, 2006:

ALL secondary schools in Essex are to be replaced or dramatically improved in a major building programme.
Work starts in 2008 in an area covering Rochford, Basildon and Castle Point.

However, Southend will have to wait a further two years to benefit from the Government's Building Schools for the Future scheme.

I rest my case!
Cheers
Mike

MyUserNamesTaken

mike_paterson wrote:

Yes - it is a non-profit organisation with charitable status and I do get to see the accounts. Most of the extra equipment has been purchased through fund raising and donations. and Yes the state schools have suffered the same increased burden and costs.




As I said - you are lucky. That certainly is not the case in Essex.

Local paper published this on 12th Jan 2006 : THE full extent of overcrowding at Essex schools has emerged after it was revealed there are 669 temporary classrooms in operation across the county read the article here


My guess is that you are in the North, or Scotland. If you are in England you are likely to be in a strong labour region. ( I just realised that in fact you are probably in Leeds by your username) as Labour has diverted a lot of money to Scotland and to its heartland.




Again you are lucky That is just not the case here in Essex - read this article published Tuesday, January 3, 2006:

ALL secondary schools in Essex are to be replaced or dramatically improved in a major building programme.
Work starts in 2008 in an area covering Rochford, Basildon and Castle Point.

However, Southend will have to wait a further two years to benefit from the Government's Building Schools for the Future scheme.

I rest my case!
Cheers
Mike

Essex still has Grammar schools, though. I remember playing Colchester County High School and Chelmsford County High School at hockey. We even played Southend High School for Girls.

Here's an interesting list! Apparently, the best state schools.

gravitytolls

It's true, that Norfolk has seen huge amounts of investment in school rebuilding, and ditching leaky old mobiles.

Huge investment in updating equipment, particularly ICT too.

Sadly, no matter how much money is thrown at schools, the standards there do not necaessarily improve. We now have a new head teacher, so fingers crossed; cos to be honest, the last one was very good at paperwork, and clkaiming all the funding that was available to her, but her leadership skills were seriously lacking.

cuffie

The rebuild/revamping of local secondary schools will only tart up the fixtures and fittings...not the pupils going to the school.

Our local secondary school has one of the lowest GSCE pass rates in the country. Looks a beautiful school, fantastic sports facilities - recently modernised and refurbished, yet the results remain the same.

Our local primary school is fantastic - excellent reputation and "up there" with the good 'uns. We will have to move for secondary schools (so much over crowding - will never get into the schools we want to).

My friend sends her little girl to private school as her local primary is naff (and her secondary would be the same naff one that we have!). She is hoping that the private education will help her to pass the 11+ and get into a good secondary school. Interestingly, the primary test results for the private school and miles higher than the secondary test results (and the secondary private results are lowish in comparison to some of the state secondary schools around near to us) - probably because all the 11+ and bright pupils get into the 11+ secondary schools and the private school is left with the "ones who didn't get in"!!

Going back to the original thread...not sure what your financial situation is like, but other friends of ours are literally "rolling in it". They are seriously thinking about sending private for secondary education because they like their house and do not want to move for secondary schools.

I would personally look at results. I agree with the "if your child is good, they will get on anywhere", but there is a different class of people at the "lower acheiving" schools. I am not being snobby, but there are more drugs, truancy etc and the chances of your children mixing with that sort of environment are higher (IMHO).

Its a sore point around here. And to move we need to get a house that is much more expensive. But we are doing it for the children...not for us.

cougar_3

cuffie wrote:

I would personally look at results. I agree with the "if your child is good, they will get on anywhere", but there is a different class of people at the "lower acheiving" schools. I am not being snobby, but there are more drugs, truancy etc and the chances of your children mixing with that sort of environment are higher (IMHO).

I beg to differ. Drugs are a problem just as much in private schools and your child will only be exposed to them if they choose to. If the school is in the same catchment area as a good neighbourhood, then there is no need to take drugs because you're at a state school.

The only reason that those figures would be higher is because of a group that inevitably exist when you can't filter them out (yes I am being more snobbish). They will drag results down and they will raise truancy. It is a very small minority of people, but if you learn to cope with them, you will cope with them for life. You can't learn that at a private school.

To look at the social make up of a school, look at its ofsted inspection. Mine says that there is a "significant minority" of high achieving people in mine, and there lies one of my criticisms of the state system: those people that are "higher achievers" are quite ignored.

With regards to money being spent on schools, there is usually more money in state schools than private. Many private schools would rather not equip whole computer suites, whereas my school has had about 100 new computers in the last year and a new building every year for the last five years.

Spendless

Dare I mention I did the 'middle class' thing of buying a house in the right catchment area:o . Actually I had many reasons to move, and though the local school wasn't my only reason it was certainly amongst them.

Has anyone mentioned having local friends? I had the choice of 2 primarys, one very close, the other 10 mins away. Both had pros and cons. One day I watched which school uniform the children of my street and surrounding ones had on. 99% were at the nearest. This definately influenced my decision as I wanted my children to know and play with the local children, and i felt they'd know them better if they were at the same school.

cuffie

cougar wrote:

I beg to differ. Drugs are a problem just as much in private schools and your child will only be exposed to them if they choose to. If the school is in the same catchment area as a good neighbourhood, then there is no need to take drugs because you're at a state school.

Sorry - I didnt mean that children wouldn't take drugs if they were at a private school, I kind of went off the point and was meaning whether they were in a good neighbourhood, the likelihood of them being exposed to drugs and truancy would be less, surely?

We can't afford to send our children privately, and even if we could, I'm not sure that I would. We'd like to live in a nice area with a good school (like most people I am sure), and you are definitely right about more money spent on state schools than private. My friend's girl that goes to a private school was shocked by the state of the gym equipment, computer equipment and the fact that things seemed very "tired". School dinners have been beans on toast before now!!!! (and they have to take in their own dessert!), and she pays more for that than we do at our school.

Savvy_Sue

gizmoleeds wrote:

without electronic whiteboards,

I don't know what it's like in the state school my boys attend, but I know someone teaching in a private school. They've just installed electronic whiteboards, but some of the bulbs have blown within a very short space of time, and there's no budget to replace them at over £100 per time!

gingerdad

Thats possibly ture my wife's state primary school (she is a teacher) has 6 white boards but not enough computers to use them.