Is Alleyn's School a cuckoo?

[Jeremy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure that Independent schools do offer a

> better education than State schools. The evidence

> is at best mixed.

It's not a case of "private schools are better, period". But it's not unlikely that out of the options available to you locally, you might decide that a private school will offer a higher standard of education than the local state school (or at least the one that you've been offered).

The point is that everyone (well, most parents) do what they believe is best for their children, it can be a tough choice and there's no absoluate right or wrong.

[LondonMix]

Quids, it depends on what you mean by working class. But in my view, anyone who makes 40k or more is not working class and with the exception of those on significant bursaries, someone making significantly less than 40k would find it a real struggle to send their kids to private school costing 12k a year.

I think this is more a question of some wealthy people not realising how much better of they are than most of the population, even if 40k doesn't sound like a lot to you, its a very high relative salary for most, even in London.

[Penguin68]

Purely as an investment I would strongly recommend moving house to an area very well served by state schools - your house will of course cost more, but at the end of your children's education you can sell your house, probably at a decent profit, to the next desparate middle-class parent in the queue for the school.

The alternative, paying for a private education, is all sunk cost, with no better return (as regards your children's future) as a good state school (and there are increasing numbers of these, including and especially in London - but without the benefit of an appreciating (housing) asset.

Of course, this type of presure does mean that (especially London) private schools cannot but afford to up their delivery to their customers, in terms of teaching skills, extra-curricular activities etc. - hence constantly raising the bar of what 'good' in terms of schooling means.

At any time some private schools will be delivering more than state schools, as others work to catch up the best state school delivery around them. This area of SE London seems increasingly well served in both public and private sectors (oh, god, there go the house prices!)

[miga]

.

[miga]

.

[Jeremy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Purely as an investment I would strongly recommend

> moving house to an area very well served by state

> schools - your house will of course cost more, but

> at the end of your children's education you can

> sell your house, probably at a decent profit, to

> the next desparate middle-class parent in the

> queue for the school.

I dunno... a few people I work with moved to Sutton for this very reason. Excellent schools and it's not expensive (although rising faster than most). But seriously, who actually wants to live in Sutton?

[LondonMix]

Yeah, Sutton is a bit grim.

Buying houses near the best state schools isn't really that different to sending your kids private in my view and I don't think either is a bad thing, just the reality we live in.

I don't have an issue with private school education per se. It would be good if it were more accessible though.

[Penguin68]

Buying houses near the best state schools isn't really that different to sending your kids private in my view

Yes it is - at the end of one you have a tradeable asset, at the end of the other you have an empty bank balance and no tradeable asset based on your 'education expenditure' - you may have to pay slightly more for your home in scenario one, but you do (can) get your money back (and then some) at the end.

[miga]

.

[*Bob*]

Of course stamp duty, estate agent, legal, removal fees - and fixing some stuff in the house you move to - might amount to more than half the total cost of private education anyway.

Not to mention 'moving near' is no guarantee of 'getting in'. Check out that egg on your face if that happens..

[miga]

.

[Polmoche]

And to add - your house may be in a good position to get you into a great primary but not necessarily for a good secondary.

I have seen families who are not wealthy put their children through privates. They simply prioritise it and some start saving from year dot.

As for 40K being wealthy, really it's not. It may be relative to someone earning minimum wage, but come to purchasing power esp. in London it is not. Your take home is around 2500. What is really left over after your mortgage / rent (where even in ED a one bed is now circa 1100); council tax, transport, food, utilities etc? It may not be poverty line, but just because it's not minimum wage does not make a 40K earner with a family wealthy.

[civilservant]

I like penguin68's point about relative returns on investment

overall, we have good primary schools in Dulwich, but that's because there is little real private-sector competition for them and most people send their kids there. The problem arises when people opt out of the state secondary schools, so that too many of the bright kids, the better-off kids and the kids with the kind of pushy parents who keep schools on their toes are removed from the catchment.

Southwark has allowed this situation to develop unchecked, as one can see just by looking at the quality of the secondary offer in Lewisham compared to that in Southwark. Also, there's been a lot of talk on this thread about how the private Dulwich schools subsidise the rest of the community, but all reports seem to be of the 'I heard that such and such a kid had a x% scholarship'. Until someone fesses up to direct experience of charity for their kid from Alleyns/Dulwich College/JAGS, I'll maintain my extreme scepticism on this subject.

[LondonMix]

Actually it is. 40K as a salary puts you in the top 10% of all earners. That's not just richer than minimum wage but richer than that vast majority of people working in this country. The statistics for London aren not that far off the picture for the country as a whole.

[Polmoche]

Lol "reports" of bursaries. I can assure you I know these children!

[mikeb]

Gross household income (including benefits and tax credits) of ?40,000 for a household of 2 adults and 2 children seems to be between 4th and 5th decile (where 10th decile is top 10%). See p22:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293738/budget_2014_distributional_analysis.pdf

[EDLove]

It's all relative. If you are living in (certain parts of) London, ?40k is not going to make you feel 'wealthy'. More like the squeezed middle.

Apparently research carried out using official figures from the Office for National Statistics found that the highest 10% of earners in London receive ?82,000 a year on average, followed by those in the South East who are on ?57,000 and the East of England where they earn about ?52,000.

This article is quite interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare

[LondonMix]

I wasn't referrign to household income MikeB but rather individual income.

Here are the updated government stats.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276204/table3-1a.pdf

If you make 48k gross and 40k net you are in the top 10% of earnerns in the country.

[miga]

.

[DuncanW]

It may be anecdotal but I went to school in south London, (not Dulwich area) and attended both a state comprehensive and a well regarded private school at different times. Sure, there were some not so well off kids at the private school and there some kids from wealthier backgrounds at the state comp. But the overall picture at both schools was exactly as you would expect.

Anyone who thinks that in a country where the average salary is ?26,500 to have ?16,500 to spend on education per child after you've paid tax is not wealthy needs their head testing imo.

[civilservant]

when talking about income, could you clarify, please - do you mean median income or mean income, net or gross, household or personal?

but what most of us are agreeing on is that even the top 10% of earners would find it difficult to "put their children through privates". I think that puts the whole notion of private schooling in context - unless of course the poor child (pun intended) is in receipt of one of these mythical bursaries, which will entitle it to rub along with the other ... 5%? 2.5%? 1%?

[srisky]

It's all very well to talk about a return on your property within a catchment area versus paying for private school fees but in reality it's not that simple. ?1k/month (average) for school fees is much more achievable than a deposit for a ?1m tiny 3-bed house plus stamp duty/fees etc. Apparently, paying rent in a catchment area then moving out once in school is also frowned upon but most can not afford ?3k/month rent plus bills on a long term basis, so again school fees are more affordable.

This is why I said (several pages ago either on this thread or the other private school thread), that it really is not as simple as saying all those that go to private school are rich, stuck up or trying to buy their children an education that others can't afford. To get into a good school around these parts you either have to pay for a house or pay for the school and both these options are generally to the exclusion of those less well-off.

40k may be in the top 10% of earnings nationwide but little point in comparing it with the rest of the UK, as cost of living can differ so wildly. Moving out of London is not always an option.

[miga]

.

[Curmudgeon]

I am extremely happy with the State secondary offer with one highly academic child at Kingsdale and benefitting from amazing opportunities and another child I am hopeful will go to Sydenham Girls although I would be equally happy with other options

I also don't mind how people choose to spend their salary and if they believe private education is right for their child then great...we chose not to and to have a much higher standard of living and opportunity than we would have paying 2 sets of school fees, with or without a nominal bursary. I appreciate we are fortunate to have that choice to make. I do feel those who scrimp and save to send their kids to private might be missing out on something, but still that's their decision

I do object to the lack of community support and charitable actions by our local private schools ...and the appalling road and environmental hazards caused by the numerous coaches parking outside the park zones and continuously running their engines..yes Alleyns I'm looking specifically at you and Townley Road which I have the misfortune to have to drive down on my return from work to be home in time for my children

[Earl Aelfheah]

This from David Mitchell

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/david-mitchell-private-school-charitable-status-great-for-foreign-plutocrats