Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We are currently thinking about whether we might be able to afford private education when my son starts school next year. While I absolutely do not want to cause a debate on the relative merits of private vs state education, I'd be really interested to know what extra costs we should realistically factor in, besides the fees themselves, uniforms, and obviously holiday childcare. Would we find ourselves feeling under constant pressure to pay for school trips, extracurricular activities, argh - even private tutors when they approach secondary school applications?? What sort of rough percentage of the fees do parents end up paying on top for things like this? The schools I am thinking about are Rosemead, Oakfield and then later on St Dunstans or Alleyns.


Any experience people feel happy to share would be very gratefully received, either here or in a PM. My husband and I went to state schools so no first hand experience of this!

Yes there are lots of hidden extras, uniforms have to be bought from special shops not Sainsburys! Sports stuff the same, longer holidays, school trips, equipment, a friend whose child recently started at private school (age 7 tho) has been shelling out hundreds of pounds on various sports wear & uniforms. It all depends on your circumstances & also where you live - my personal opinion is that the state primary school standard in the surrounding areas is so good that I wouldn't see the need (even if I could afford it which I couldn't) to privately educate at primary level.

Hi

Mine are at rosemead.

Hidden costs: school trips. Up to the last penny it will be added

to the bill. You have to provide packed lunch then, but the missed lunch won't be deducted though.

Something l never understood.

Anyway: mostnof the uniform we buy second hand, white shirts from m&s.

Haven't bought any additional sport equipment yet.


Costs of clubs vary:

Run by stuff really affordable, ?10-15 per term roughly.

Run by external teacher, round ?80.

So you can decide. But you'll have to ask for it, they are mostly not on display.

Hope that helps.

My son is only in reception so we haven't really come across the "hidden costs" yet but I just wanted to say that we buy his trousers, shorts and PE kit basics from Sainsburys/m&s. From the school we have bought his shirt and jumper (and when he's a bit older his tie and jacket but that's a while away yet).


I'm unsure Smiler as to why you think birthday parties would be any more expensive if they were at private school or not??? Sure some people like to spend money on kids parties but you don't have to. This year my husband and 2 of his friends will be entertaining our son and his class in the park with lots of sports - the only cost being the food!!! Cheap as chips and the kids will have a ball.


re childcare - obviously having more holidays will entail higher childcare costs unfortunately. A lot of my sons friends have childminders, nanny's or use the before and after school clubs (I'm not sure of the costs of the school childcare but obviously childminders and nanny's will be the same if at state or private). In the holidays they seem to split between childminders/nannys and holiday camps.


Sorry I can't be of any more help but I'm seeing a friend tomorrow with kids further up the school so I will ask her about more costs as they get older.


Good luck with your decision

  • 3 weeks later...

My son is at Alleyn's Junior. we get most of the uniform from the school-run second hand. All school trips are included in the fees. ( yes even residentials) Most clubs are also included, the ones that aren't are the ones where they get an external teacher to come in. (Ballet, taekwondo) Music lessons are also included, they all learn strings from year 2. School dinners also included.


Extra long hols would incur extra childcare costs no doubt, but you do save on your own holiday cos you can go in shoulder season rather than peak!!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...