Afternoon:
10°c
£10,000: what parents pay for 'free' state schooling
Tim Ross, Education Correspondent3 Feb 2009
THE true cost of a "free" state education was revealed today with parents paying £10,000 to put one child through school.
A government report found four out of 10 parents had difficulties meeting costs such as buying new uniforms, games kit and funding school trips.
Ministers accused headteachers of flouting the law by asking parents to pay for educational visits during the school day and forcing families to buy uniforms exclusively from one shop. Children's Secretary Ed Balls ordered schools to take more account of tighter family finances in the recession.
Parents paid an average £683.79 per year per child at primary school. This covered stationery, transport, uniforms, trips and meals. The cost of secondary school was £1,195.47 in 2007. Over 11 years of compulsory education, the cost for one child reaches £10,080. The figures included extra classes for which a fee was charged and voluntary parental contributions.
Half of parents felt pressurised to contribute to school trips. Mr Balls said: "I am very concerned that some schools risk putting extra pressure on family finances simply because they are not following the rules on charging and uniform."
He promised new legislation to strengthen the handling of complaints about school issues.
DO THE MATH
Parents typically spend £683.79 per year for one child in primary school, and £1,195.47 for a child in secondary education.
School uniforms and PE kit cost an average £184.17. In secondary school, it was £211.60 per year.
Nine out of 10 parents had been asked to pay for a school trip, with the average day trip costing £9.47 in primaries and £21.70 in secondaries.
Residential trips were £153.14 (primaries) and £160.07 (secondaries).
A school canteen lunch typically costs £1.81. One in four said lunch cost more than £2 a day.
Reader views (19)
Gee, many of us miss the point:
It's a GOVERNMENT report about GOVERNMENT education facilities and influence by GOVERNMENT employees. It's GOVERNMENT property and GOVERNMENT controlled and filtered knowledge and paid for by GOVERNMENT taxation on citizens. GOVERNMENT requires the schooling and offers taxpayer funding to educate the children.
If this were done by a monopoly business, we might have people pissed off enough to take action. Instead, they just wait for GOVERNMENT to spend our money to analyze and spend more of our money for a GOVERNMENT solution.
Isn't GOVERNMENT wonderful? They do all the best things... though I can't offer proof of that (neither can they). Sorry, my GOVERNMENT education didn't take.
- Ken In Oregon, Beaverton, OR USA, 05/02/2009 07:34
Report abuse
No matter the cost? What ever and some forgot that the PARENTS are the ones paying the taxes. Parents must have say in their child's education. I dont understand why that is a big deal? Parents not government know what is best for their children. I feel bad for the UK and imagine we want this here.
- Danny M, Knoxville, TN, 05/02/2009 03:49
Report abuse
I still have to pay for the "free" education in my taxes, even though I choose to home school my children so that they can get a better education than the government provides.
- Aubrey Kahn, Kissimmee, USA, 05/02/2009 01:45
Report abuse
Nikhil Said - "Parents who cannot afford to educate their own children should not have children."
- BINGO! You've got it exactly right. To those who say, "I can't support my family on minimum wage!" I say, how much were you making when you decided to have the kids? You're not supposed to be able to support a family on minimum wage!
We have many folks who take no personal responsibility or have any accountability for their situations...it's all George Bush's fault anyway I'm sure.
- D. Roberts, VA, 04/02/2009 23:19
Report abuse
EU schools and parents have higher expectations. If a child does not do their work it on the child, not on the teacher or school. Neither do EU schools believe in social promotion. We also need to stop thinking every child should go to college. There is no shame in trade schools.
- Ann, Orlando, 04/02/2009 21:35
Report abuse
This is a good deal, nearly a pound a day to have your children watched and taught for 190 days a year. My God nothing is free and if anything this is a deal. I would be more interested in how much in taxes it cost, I guess this is out of pocket expenses. My wifes college was over priced, $60k, now that's robbery.
- Aaron, St.louis MO, USA, 04/02/2009 21:22
Report abuse
"Why do so many parents (in the US & UK) believe that school should be "free?"
Perhaps because (in the USA) our property taxes go directly towards funding schools. . We paid property taxes for 20 years before we had 2 children. Now we pay $4,000 a year in taxes for our home and $900 a year for some empty land we own. We still get to pay pay hundreds of dollars a year for "other" fees and costs associated with sending our children to a public school.
Even renters pay property tax. It's just embedded in their monthly rent payment. So all that money from all those homes and business and apartments and industries, yet there still doesn't seem to be enough.
Last time we checked into some of the private schools near us, we could send both our girls to the private school for around $4,000 combined, and have a few dollars left over. But then we would still have to pay our property taxes.
This is why so many people support the idea of a voucher program. How about something like $2,000 per child, and the parent gets to decide if they want to spend it at a private school, or at a public school. . .
WJV
- W Vojak, Vancouver, WA USA, 04/02/2009 21:12
Report abuse
And how much in taxes does the "free" education cost?
- Randy, Orlando FL USA, 04/02/2009 18:17
Report abuse
Why do so many parents (in the US & UK) believe that school should be "free?" Education costs money, and parents should be grateful that the taxpayers pay most of the bill.
Parents who cannot afford to educate their own children should not have children.
- Nikhil, Louisiana, USA, 04/02/2009 17:36
Report abuse
No matter the cost, your students at least appear to be GETTING an education.
- Timothy Gobbel, Orlando, USA, 04/02/2009 16:24
Report abuse
School uniforms are becoming popular in Houston. But to save the parents time and money, the school district allows each school to ste its own standards.Case in point-Fondren Middle school requires White over blue.
A white T-shirt and blue jeans satisfies this. Simple. Elegant.
- Scrap Iron, Houston, Texas, USA, 04/02/2009 14:44
Report abuse
Children need clothes – school or not. School trips are not necessary, and are a luxury.
School is about helping children to communicate and evaluate for themselves. Cut out the indoctrination and we may get the education standards required for a successful economy.
- Ian, Reading, England, 04/02/2009 08:56
Report abuse
What are people complaining about? I am complaining about the cost, to the taxpayer, of the salaries for those government employees who undertook this survey.
And each of them with a gold plated pension scheme!
- Naomi Sajeri, Manchester, 04/02/2009 06:38
Report abuse
This is typical of all schools, regardless whether they are secondary, or primary. Parents are continuously being bombarded with the same form of harassment. They are forced to pay out of their own pockets for trips which are worthless. This recession is the worst aspect of modern day to day life in Britain and other countries. The schools fail to realize how inappropriately and irresponsibly they are acting in these bone crunching times.
- john, London, 03/02/2009 21:34
Report abuse
Schooling is not free, it is pad for with tax payers money. I am not a parent but I pay the same amount of tax and get less back in tax benifits. How much does it cost me to put other peoples grubby sprogs through school!
- Ben, London, W1, 03/02/2009 21:29
Report abuse
"A school canteen lunch typically costs £1.81. One in four said lunch cost more than £2 a day."
Am I right in thinking that this £1.81 average has been incorporated into the calculation here?
If so, using the 189-day school year, that's £342,09 per year, and over your "11 years of compulsory education", that's £3762.99 for school meals - school meals which, incidentally, you yesterday reported as being "brain food" after the ISER study at Essex University.
In the interests of fair reporting, shouldn't this figure be subtracted from your quoted figure of £10,080? Surely one cannot argue that 'feeding your child' is a 'hidden cost' of their 11-year education...
- Ejc, London, England, 03/02/2009 17:28
Report abuse
Excuse me! What is this man on about? Who does he propose pay for the uniforms? And the stationary? The UK tax payers - I think not! If you can't afford a little over £50 a month (less than the benefits you receive for having a child) to give them an education, I really think you should perhaps reconsider the entire concept of children.
- Lee B, London, 03/02/2009 17:10
Report abuse
As opposed to the true cost of sending your child to private school, the amount exceeds £200k, so what are people complaining about?
- Raminder Bhall, Northolt, 03/02/2009 16:11
Report abuse
Actually, if you decide to have children you should be prepared to pay for certain things, these include trips and visits. Having a child should not give a person a free ride through the system it should be a carefully thought out and well funded venture. I personally think that profiteering from school uniform is a step too far but if we have children we should be responsible for meeting their financial needs rather than relying on the over burdened tax payer to pick up the pieces. Only then will our streets be free of feral children whose conception entitled their parents to a lifetime of handouts.
Perhaps if we had to pay directly for our healthcare we would not be a nation so hell bent on binge drinking, over eating and abusing drugs.
- Anna-Louise Gilbert, Copford Green, Essex., 03/02/2009 15:39
Report abuse
