ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
If your DC go to private school, how do you arrange childcare in the long school holidays?(199 Posts)
If both parents work, its hard enough to cover childcare during the ordinary state school holidays, but how on earth do you cope with the longer holidays at private schools?
If both parents need to work full time all year round in order to pay the school fees, what on earth do you do when your children then have three or four weeks off at Christmas and Easter, and two months off in the summer? Do you end up having to find even more money to pay for holiday camps/activity weeks etc?
I'd be interesting in any estimates of how much to budget for longer holiday childcare on top of school fees, but I suspect this may be a bit like asking how long is a piece of string ....
jabed - don't hide behind mathematical terms. your use of "normal" has not been in a statistical context. You have been referring to SN kids as not "normal" - as I said, this is offensive.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
Jabed, at your school, you see wealthy parents with children who are highly unlikely to have special educational needs. Does your school have an entrance exam? If it does then that will cut out most kids with educational SN.
Margerykemp- jabed is a teacher who married a student after she left college.
Heaven knows I think the man is an arse. But your accusations are completely unfounded and unacceptable, and I suggest you get them deleted.
Rabbitstew, indeed - parental age does appear to be a factor in dyslexia (which may be associated with a region on chromosome 6, although the genetics are complicated and other factors besides genetics di come into pkay)
See, for example, Saha S, Barnett AG, Foldi C, Burne TH, Eyles DW, et al. (2009) Advanced Paternal Age Is Associated with Impaired Neurocognitive Outcomes during Infancy and Childhood. PLoS Med 6(3)
But you still don't have a source for that assertion?
Risk of chromosomal abnormalities, with emphasis on live-born offspring of young mothers.
B B Little, S M Ramin, B S Cambridge, N R Schneider, D S Cohen, L M Snell, M J Harrod, and W L Johnston
In a large public urban hospital obstetrics service with > 123,000 deliveries in a 10-year period (1980-89), the frequencies (0.12%) of any type of chromosomal abnormality and of trisomy syndromes were analyzed for maternal age-related risk, by logistic regression. Focusing on very young gravidas, we found that in the study period there were 9,332 births (7.5% of all deliveries) to mothers < or = 16 years old. Estimated risks of chromosomal abnormalities among offspring associated with very young maternal age (9-16 years) were similar to those age-associated risks of mothers 20-29 years old. Risks of chromosomal abnormalities increase with advancing maternal age and are independent of ethnicity.
Still, against popular belief, most children with Downs syndrome are born to young mothers: 51 % to mothers under 30, 72 % to women under 35.
and also the article:
Home Age and birth defects
Birth defects higher in older and younger women
With an overall prevalence of 3%-5%, babies born with birth defects are the leading cause of infant death in the United States. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal cause for birth defects. The most common non-chromosomal birth defects are congenital heart defects, cleft lip and palate, and abdominal wall defects (gastroschisis or omphalocele). New data suggests that if a women gives birth between the ages of 25 and 30, then the risk of babies with non-chromosomal birth defects is at its lowest. Women who are both older and younger than this seem to have a greater risk for this type of birth defects
Age and risk for chromosomal abnormalities
The association between fetal chromosomal abnormalities and older maternal age has been widely researched and established. The older a woman decides to have a child, the greater the chances of her baby being conceived with a chromosomal defect such as Downs Syndrome. This is because a womans eggs age as she ages. Older eggs are more prone to forming embryos with either too many or too few chromosomes. This is the reason why older women have a greater rate for infertility, miscarriages and babies with chromosomal birth defects.
Now, however, it has come to the attention of researchers that the extremes of maternal age, meaning women over age 35 and women who are 20 and under, may also be related to non-chromosomal structural abnormalities in the fetus
Message deleted by Mumsnet for repeating a deleted post
Still, against popular belief, most children with Downs syndrome are born to young mothers: 51 % to mothers under 30, 72 % to women under 35
That's because there are more babies born to mothers in this age group though. What is key is not the overall number of babies born with SN to each age group, but the percentage of the births in that age group that are SN. Again - pretty basic maths Jabed?
Incidentally - on the other thread you claim your ds is home schooled. do you just make it up as you go along?
"At the risk of offending (I am grumpy today). Did any of you actually want children? Why did you have them to put them into wrap around care? Do you ever see your children?"
Oh the answer's simple then isn't it, we should all become teachers . Now let's see, how many parents of school-aged children are there... and how many teaching jobs... (adds up on fingers...) er, doesn't compute!
I think you can complain about particular posts and have them deleted, jabed. Just click on report to alert MNHQ.
I am not carying on. I am disgusted by the accusations made by MNers here.
Banter is one thing. Accusing me in most graphic and crude terms of abusing my professional position by having sex with a pupoil is unaccurate and disgusting. If you cannot have a heated debate without making comments like that then there is no point.
This thread has turned into the jabed show. It started off as a question about school holidays.
Just report it, jabed... I am sure they will agree with you that that particular post went way outside their chat guidelines.
"Still, against popular belief, most children with Downs syndrome are born to young mothers: 51 % to mothers under 30, 72 % to women under 35."
Yes, most children born with Down's syndrome are born to mothers under 35. Older mothers are automatically offered antenatal screening, and the overwhelming majority of parents who have a chromosomal abnormality diagnosed in their foetus opt for termination. So most children born with Down's syndrome are born to mothers who were too young to qualify for screening so didn't get an antenatal diagnosis and the offer of termination.
This is why the NHS has been rolling out universal combined nuchal screening and blood testing for all mothersregardless of age (not sure if they've finished yet). Before the availability of antenatal screening and termination for the over-35s most children with Down's syndrome were born to older mothers.
You'll see that the article itself states that there aren't any greater risks of chromosomal abnormalities for mothers aged 9-16 than for mothers aged 20-29 (i.e. the exact opposite of what you said).
Agree that was uncalled for Jabed - have reported it.
But I am appalled that you think this has been merely 'banter'. You have accused working mothers of not caring about their children. You have stated that SN kids are not "normal". You have asserted that having kids post 50 is the way forward when the vast majority of women struggle to get pregnant post 40.
This is not banter, it is offensive nonsense.
I have already reported margerykemp's posts.
And the second article is referring specifically to non-chromosomal defects so offers no support whatsoever for your assertion that chromosomal defects are more common in mothers under 20 than those in their 20s and early 30s.
(also you don't actually say where the second article's from, and there's no indication in the extract you posted of the source of their data, but the fact that it isn't talking about chromosomal defects is obvious just on the face of it)
It seems I have an e mail from MN moderators. I seem to have upset a lot of posters. You are not happy with me and I have been asked to restrain my comments. I was not aware of how upset you ladies all were. I apologise unreservedly.
Jabed - this might help, definitely more at risk the older the mother - where are you getting your figures from?
'you ladies' - sparklingbrook
Why the scepticism? Its straightforward enough. I have always been polite and called MNers ladies. As Wiki explains:
The word lady is a polite term for a woman, specifically the female equivalent to, or spouse of, a lord or gentleman, and in many contexts a term for any adult woman. Once relating specifically to women of high social class or status, over the last 300 years it has spread to embrace all adult women.
Nothing will help overcooked. To be honest I am extremely hurt by what has transpired.
How do you know we are all ladies? You aren't. Not all MNetters are ladies as you have proved jabed
I don't need Wiki explanations, no need for the word ladies at all. How about 'I was not aware of how upset you all were'?
The thing is all about balance. Hoever, taking a return snipe at your side swipe about my age - at least my DS will be young enough to enjoy his inheritance. My mother is still alive, My father passed away last year aged 90. I will not see any inheritance until I am probably 70+.
Sorry, Jabed, I've been
neglecting my children working all day so have only just caught up with your latest bigoted comments. Yup, your kid will be able to enjoy spending all your money long after you're not around to see your grandchildren growing up. For my part, I would prefer to have - and do have - my parents alive to see their grandkids.
I am out of touch? No, you are I think You are out of touch with the facts of economic lfe You seem to want it all and want it yesterday and have hocked yourself up for it.
Erm, no, actually. I'm not out of touch at all. I don't recall having said anything about "wanting it all" or having "hocked myself up for it". In fact I recall specifically pointing out that I live in a very modest property, have a family member provide childcare, and generally live within my means and yet I still need to work to pay basic bills. In fact I suspect that as a junior lawyer at a City firm, I probably earn a good deal more than you do in your semi-retired role in a school. Though being a lot younger than you, I haven't been able to benefit from the huge property boom that appears to be the basis of your financial security. So, I need to work for a higher income, because selling my house sure isn't going to help me on the money front. The property market will not see those gains again for many years - a factor outside the control of the worker-bee mothers and fathers who have to pay a far greater proportion of their incomes out on mortgage or rent than your generation did. You appear to have ignored this fact entirely in your analysis of other people's life choices.
I did the opposite and very nearly didnt have a family. But at least I am aware of my mistake. It annoys me beyond belief that MNers come here wanting everything and not having thought through their situations before embarking on actions ( like babies and child care)
Does it really annoy you beyond belief? Rather perverse, then, for you to devote so much time to stirring up a debate among these MNers who are so ignorant that we don't think through any major life decisions. Except, that palpably is NOT the approach of the MNers who have posted on this thread, many of whom have pointed out to you that the length of school holidays is not a factor that they take into account when choosing a school because things like how good the school is a much more important. You have disregarded that fact entirely, presumably because it doesn't fit with your unfounded opinion that all women who work and struggle with childcare "should have thought of that before".
You will probably find people more aligned with your world view posting comments on the Daily Mail website. In the interests of not being "annoyed beyond belief" any longer, perhaps worth popping over there.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.