Madrid, 28 October 2026 –
CICAE and the Francisco Giner de los Ríos Parents’ Association (FAPA) today presented the 11th Study on Fees at State-Subsidised Private Schools in the Community of Madrid, compiled by Garlic B2B for the 2026–2027 academic year. The study documents illegal charges and practices that contravene the guarantees of free education: charges not provided for by law, contributions presented as compulsory, and regular extracurricular activities taking place during school hours.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
● Commercial centres charge an average of 1,450 euros per pupil per year, compared with 680 euros at non-profit organisations.
● 96.7 per cent charge a school fee or contribution. The amounts range from zero to 2,450 euros per year, with an average of 1,032 euros, excluding school meals, transport and other services.
● Among the schools requesting these payments, 71.2 per cent present them as compulsory, and 15.1 per cent warn of consequences, including exclusion, if the family fails to pay.
● 36.3 per cent claim payments for items not permitted by law. This figure does not cover all the illegalities and irregularities that have been documented.
The study analyses 151 schools, representing 35.3 per cent of the 428 schools that make up the study population. It draws on the documentation and verbal explanations provided by the schools themselves during the application process, including their responses when families ask what would happen if they did not pay.
Almost universal fees, but differing practices
Although 96.7 per cent of schools charge a fee or educational contribution, not all of them operate in the same way. Private schools charge, on average, 1,450 euros per pupil per year, compared with 680 euros at non-profit organisations.
The overall average is 1,032 euros per year and the maximum is 2,450 euros, excluding school meals, transport, extracurricular activities and other additional fees. Five schools, 3.3 per cent of the sample, do not charge any fees or educational contributions, and one of them expressly advocates free education: ‘Education is free and you cannot charge for it’ or ‘we are a school, not a business’, they explain to families.
“Under the same public funding system, there are schools that do not charge any fees or educational contributions, whilst others charge up to 2,450 euros a year, in addition to other payments. These differences call for an explanation and lead us to question whether the higher fees are driven by educational needs or by the pursuit of profit,” says Elena Cid, Director-General of CICAE.
The report identifies four profiles amongst the centres analysed:
● Group 1, 28 per cent of the sample: this group has the highest amounts, with an average of 1,748.40 euros per year. 90.7 per cent are commercial entities and 79.1 per cent were established after 2000. They are concentrated in high-income areas.
● Group 2, 38 per cent: comprises both commercial and non-profit organisations. It claims an average of €865.40 per year and has the highest pressure to recover funds — 8.65 out of 11 — and the lowest transparency — 23.51 out of 100.
● Group 3, 19 per cent: predominantly long-established non-profit organisations. The average is 746.50 euros per year. The voluntary nature of the contribution is usually documented, but little is said about it during the conversation.
● Group 4, 15 per cent: this group has the lowest amounts, averaging 432.80 euros per year, with greater transparency and less pressure. Non-profit organisations in lower-income areas predominate. It includes the five centres with no fees or educational contributions.
The ‘voluntary’ contribution and the consequences of non-payment
Of the 146 schools that request a fee or contribution, 71.2 per cent present the payment as compulsory; 15.1 per cent allow pupils not to pay, but warn that this will result in exclusion from activities or teaching content; and only 13.7 per cent acknowledge that the contribution is voluntary, with no consequences leading to exclusion. Overall, 86.3 per cent do not present it as a payment that is free of
consequences for the pupil.
Warnings of exclusion are particularly concentrated in Group 1: 44.2 per cent of schools in this group issue such warnings during the interview. The study records consequences communicated to families, not actual exclusions observed.
Mari Carmen Morillas, chair of the FAPA Francisco Giner de los Ríos, states: “It is extremely serious to be told that the pupil will not complete the planned programme or that they will have to be collected at 12.30. At Aquila School, the response was: “Choosing this school also means embracing its educational programme. If not, there are state schools available.” These explanations present payment as a condition for full participation and undermine the voluntary nature of the programme.”
A price sheet that’s as hard to decipher as an electricity bill.
Families encounter items with different names, monthly and annual payments, and scant explanations regarding content, schedules, mandatory status, and the consequences of nonpayment. The confusion increases when the documentation refers to “voluntary contributions” while verbal explanations imply that they are mandatory. This
makes it difficult to anticipate an expense that could strain the family budget for many years.
39% of the centers do not fully disclose the prices of activities and services on their websites. Furthermore, in 39% of the centers that request a fee or contribution, the voluntary nature of the payment is not mentioned during the interview or stated in the documentation. Group 2 has the lowest level of transparency, while Group 4 has the highest.
“Families should be aware of the financial conditions before choosing a school, with complete, accessible, and clear information,” Morillas notes.
Illegal charges and violations of the guarantee of free education.
36.3% request payments for items not covered by the law, such as a “fee” or “educational project.” This percentage corresponds to that specific indicator, not to the total number of documented illegalities and irregularities. The report also documents mandatory contributions and charges linked to content that schools present as necessary to complete the education, with the consequence of
exclusion if they are not paid.
It also documents regular extracurricular activities taking place during school hours, between classes, despite the legal prohibition. Fifteen percent charge fees for extracurricular activities; of these, 59.1% provide their name and schedule, mainly between 12:00 or 12:30 and 1:00 or 1:30 p.m.
“Many families cannot pick up their children between class periods and have no real choice but to let them participate,” warns Elena Cid. For Morillas, “the organization of the school day cannot
become a means of pressuring parents to pay.”
The Regional Ministry must ensure that education is free and take action against illegal fees.
CICAE believes that the differences in ownership structures point to the commodification of a new model of state-subsidized private schools. In its own analysis, in addition to the report, it estimates that 44% of schools in Madrid are commercially owned and notes that the vast majority of Group 1 schools have received public land under concession or are private schools that subsequently entered into public-private partnership agreements.
“We are concerned about the for-profit orientation of education funded by public funds,” states Cid.
The Regional Ministry of Education must fulfill its obligation to guarantee free education, monitor both the fees charged and the information provided to families, and take action to put an end to illegal fees and practices that violate the principles of voluntary participation and non-discrimination. CICAE also calls for the regulations and
oversight mechanisms to be adapted to these private funding practices.
