Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

What exactly do you mean 'money must be available'? Are you suggesting that private school fees would just be handed over to the state?

Not at all. Odd conclusion. I’m just saying that the top 6-8% must have the ability to pay such fees at a time when the fees for each child are often in excess of the average annual salary.

I suppose the question then is, is it justifiable for a privileged elite in the country to have access to such essentials as better health care and better educational facilities? Doubt we’ll answer it definitively.

[Andy_Faber]

Not at all. Odd conclusion. I’m just saying that the top 6-8% must have the ability to pay such fees at a time when the fees for each child are often in excess of the average annual salary.

I suppose the question then is, is it justifiable for a privileged elite in the country to have access to such essentials as better health care and better educational facilities? Doubt we’ll answer it definitively.

I still don't get the first paragraph but the question in your second paragraph suggests you don't 'get' the breadth of people, their personal circumstances or their determination in relation to the choice of state or fee paying education. Most choosing the fee-paying route aren't 'privileged elite', most that I know (I know a fair few and I'm sure you can guess why) are in stable relationships, maybe a bit better off than the average but by no means 'rich', focussed on their children's path through life and willing to forego certain things around time and money to enable that. IMO 'it' is justifiable in the same way as its justifiable for parents to do ****-all for the education of their kids. NB I'm not talking about those able to afford Eton etc, such establishments are outliers in this discussion to me

[ramAnag]

I still don't get the first paragraph but the question in your second paragraph suggests you don't 'get' the breadth of people, their personal circumstances or their determination in relation to the choice of state or fee paying education. Most choosing the fee-paying route aren't 'privileged elite', most that I know (I know a fair few and I'm sure you can guess why) are in stable relationships, maybe a bit better off than the average but by no means 'rich', focussed on their children's path through life and willing to forego certain things around time and money to enable that. IMO 'it' is justifiable in the same way as its justifiable for parents to do ****-all for the education of their kids. NB I'm not talking about those able to afford Eton etc, such establishments are outliers in this discussion to me

Bit cryptic, not sure I can guess why. I understand you differentiating between Eton and the more local likes of Trent College, Abbotsholme and Denstone but they are still extremely expensive and out of the reach of most people.

Your view is that being wealthy enough to access such facilities is justifiable and you are, of course, fully entitled to that view. I’m not so comfortable with the situation and find the fact that, I think, 20 Prime Ministers went to Eton, emblematic of the situation and a cause for concern.

What I’m more certain of is that it is never ‘justifiable for parents to do **** all for the education of their kids’ and I’m puzzled by that contrary comment from you.

[Andy_Faber]

Bit cryptic, not sure I can guess why. I understand you differentiating between Eton and the more local likes of Trent College, Abbotsholme and Denstone but they are still extremely expensive and out of the reach of most people.

Your view is that being wealthy enough to access such facilities is justifiable and you are, of course, fully entitled to that view. I?m not so comfortable with the situation and find the fact that, I think, 20 Prime Ministers went to Eton, emblematic of the situation and a cause for concern.

What I?m more certain of is that it is never ?justifiable for parents to do **** all for the education of their kids? and I?m puzzled by that contrary comment from you.

Maybe I didn't word that last paragraph well. Its a free world, if parents feel their kids' best interests are served by taking them on expensive holidays, having generous allowances, latest tech etc but never spend minute one helping them with school work/issues then that's their choice and it can't be legislated against

But there's the other side of the coin. Forget Eton, focus on (and don't forget, not-for-profit) Trent etc. Yes there are a few parents who's financial headroom is enormous but there are also lots of 'ordinary' parents setting their stall out to invest their disposable income in their children. Again its a free world, why should they not give their hard earned cash to a school instead of a tour operator or other such luxury.

I also don't see a big difference between parents who want the best and go to the fee paying option and those who choose to invest their money in relocating into a good school's catchment - its still use of what you seem to see as an unfair advantage, ie cash, however honestly and/or back breakingly its been attained, to give children the best available. Likewise state school parents who pour money into private tuition.

Not suggesting there's not inequality that shouldn't be addressed in the state system more suggessting that paying for education issnt as elitist as you make out

[Geoff Parkstone]

Rather than criticising those parents who chose the fee paying option, those in the state sector should be very pleased that they do. Class sizes would be even more unsustainable if those parents didn't invest in their kids future but simply plonked them in the local comprehensive. Resource management is eased by having less to educate.

That so many ex PMs were educated in the private sector is something of a red herring. That the better educated get involved in politics and want to serve their country isn't a surprise. It's about as unsurprising as saying the majority of British murderers or drug dealers are "educated' in the state system. It's back to the nature or nurture argument

[ramAnag]

Maybe I didn't word that last paragraph well. Its a free world, if parents feel their kids' best interests are served by taking them on expensive holidays, having generous allowances, latest tech etc but never spend minute one helping them with school work/issues then that's their choice and it can't be legislated against

But there's the other side of the coin. Forget Eton, focus on (and don't forget, not-for-profit) Trent etc. Yes there are a few parents who's financial headroom is enormous but there are also lots of 'ordinary' parents setting their stall out to invest their disposable income in their children. Again its a free world, why should they not give their hard earned cash to a school instead of a tour operator or other such luxury.

I also don't see a big difference between parents who want the best and go to the fee paying option and those who choose to invest their money in relocating into a good school's catchment - its still use of what you seem to see as an unfair advantage, ie cash, however honestly and/or back breakingly its been attained, to give children the best available. Likewise state school parents who pour money into private tuition.

Not suggesting there's not inequality that shouldn't be addressed in the state system more suggessting that paying for education issnt as elitist as you make out

All compelling and sensible arguments. It is ‘elitist’ in so much as it is only currently available for (figures vary) approximately 6-8% of children but I fully accept your arguments about parents making sacrifices to seek the best for their children.

What I still find sad is that a small proportion have access to such facilities as - and I have seen all these in the last two years - their own Olympic size pool, golf course, pitches and score boards on a par with the very best semi pro clubs, while others have to play on ‘dog sh1t park’ and the local ‘floating plaster’ pool.

Would that more could enjoy better facilities in a more equitable society throughout their education.

[ramAnag]

Rather than criticising those parents who chose the fee paying option, those in the state sector should be very pleased that they do. Class sizes would be even more unsustainable if those parents didn't invest in their kids future but simply plonked them in the local comprehensive. Resource management is eased by having less to educate.

That so many ex PMs were educated in the private sector is something of a red herring. That the better educated get involved in politics and want to serve their country isn't a surprise. It's about as unsurprising as saying the majority of British murderers or drug dealers are "educated' in the state system. It's back to the nature or nurture argument

I haven’t criticised those parents who choose the fee paying option, I questioned the system, and your comment about class sizes is a complete red herring.

Neither have I referred to so many PMs being educated in the private sector, I have referred specifically to the disproportionate number of PMs (and other leading politicians if you like) who were educated at Eton.

It’s like a private members club for the ruling class…probably because that’s exactly what it is.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Perhaps the fee paying school system should be nationalised then and the superb facilities be made available to all? Selected kids could then enjoy these better facilities by some form of lottery system rather than paying. But then you'd still have an educational elite who had access to better resources - but more "fairly" selected. Well for a while until those facilities deteriorated through lack of investment, as the state couldn't fairly invest more in some schools than others. So ultimately we achieve the objective of socialism - abolishing privilege by dragging everyone down to the same lower level...

[Ram Pant]

Rather than criticising those parents who chose the fee paying option, those in the state sector should be very pleased that they do. Class sizes would be even more unsustainable if those parents didn't invest in their kids future but simply plonked them in the local comprehensive. Resource management is eased by having less to educate.

That so many ex PMs were educated in the private sector is something of a red herring. That the better educated get involved in politics and want to serve their country isn't a surprise. It's about as unsurprising as saying the majority of British murderers or drug dealers are "educated' in the state system. It's back to the nature or nurture argument

If there were less pupils at private schools or no private schools at all, wouldn't that mean there'd be ex private school teachers looking for a job and they could enter the state school system enabling class sizes to remain at current levels or maybe even slightly reduce?

[Ram Pant]

Just Googled "average UK wage" and it's 39K. Then looked up Trent college fees, the highest rate for a full time boarder is 42K. Not sure what to make of that.

[Geoff Parkstone]

If there were less pupils at private schools or no private schools at all, wouldn't that mean there'd be ex private school teachers looking for a job and they could enter the state school system enabling class sizes to remain at current levels or maybe even slightly reduce?

In theory yes, provided they accepted the pay cut - but I was thinking more of facilities and space. Its not as easy to magic up space for newclassrooms so may have to squeeze more kids into undersized rooms? Then there would be need for bigger toilets, dining facilities, sports facilities etc etc. Unless the state takes over the existing fee paying school buildings facilities etc (see above post).

In a microcosm, the school I was governor of had about 6 gyppo families move into the area and were obliged to make provision for their kids' education albeit temporarily. This was a single class/year primary school, so only about 150 kids and no room in buildings. Had to increase class size and "squeeze an extra desk(s) in". Sure we got extra headcount funding but quality of education fell slightly, or should I say it would have. A lot of effort and work involved in taking on the new kids, and then, of course, their parents couldnt be arsed to bring them to school anyway and social services/parents stand off ensued so none of them turned up. Not quite the same thing but it illustrates the infrastructur problem of facilities overcrowding already in place

[Andy_Faber]

Just Googled "average UK wage" and it's 39K. Then looked up Trent college fees, the highest rate for a full time boarder is 42K. Not sure what to make of that.

If you?re just going to quote numbers, multiply the 39 by 2 if both parents work and make the wage 50,000 which is what 30% earn, you?ve got 100,000. Take off the boarding element and you arrive at ?25k fees per annum. My plumber and his wife are going on two cruises this year, being an inquisitive chap I checked the cost - around ?25k

Just another load of numbers

[Geoff Parkstone]

Just Googled "average UK wage" and it's 39K. Then looked up Trent college fees, the highest rate for a full time boarder is 42K. Not sure what to make of that.

thats what happens when you compare averages against highests.

[ramAnag]

thats what happens when you compare averages against highests.

But he’s not. Firstly Trent College is cited because it’s local, not because it has the highest fees, it really doesn’t.
Secondly, the only point being made is that the fees for TC are actually higher than the national average wage, and yes, AF can quite reasonably make the point that there may be two average (or above) wages available to a particular family, but equally there may be two or more children in that family.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Just Googled "average UK wage" and it's 39K. Then looked up Trent college fees, the highest rate for a full time boarder is 42K. Not sure what to make of that.

According to their website, full boarding fees from year 9 onwards are ? 17295 per term ie ? 51885 pa. To put one child through secondary education there costs a shade over 360k. So have three kids and to privately educate them there through secondary education is significantly over ? 1 million.

Now these are of course boarding fees - day fees are less than half that - but you dont have to feed them or take them to school every day so theres a bit of savings there.

Cross checked against the school I went to, where boarding fees are maybe 5% higher, so these are reasonable statistics for a mid tier public school. Its scary to think my parents paid ? 30 a year when I first went there (after a 300 per term scolarship).

So if I had three kids in this school I would need gross income of around ? 270,000 pa JUST TO PAY SCHOOL FEES. Assuming I want to live somewhere, eat, drive and have some semblance of a life, then maybe minium ? 350k pa. AI says thats less than 0.1% of the population. AI also tells me that 0.5% of all children in UK board at private schools. Actually thos numbers do somewhat align.

But 6% attend such schools on a day basis, so lets not get too carried away with boarding numbers or costs.

Looking at these numbers dispassionately it makes no sense that anyone goes to private schools! Bear in minnd that parents of school age children may well be younger and still be lower down the career path it suggests grand parent largesse or generational wealth being dissipated - which isnt sustainable. The key to understanding the dynamics of it must lie in scholarships and bursaries - which are theoretically open to all and should favour the less well to do families.

So what can we conclude? You probably need at least 100k gross pay to put just one child through private boarding, unless you have generational wealth or a scholarship / bursary. If you have more than one child and want to treat them equitably, make sure they are 8 years apart in age!

Just numbers but intriguing ones, well I think so