If your DC go to private school, how do you arrange childcare in the long school holidays?

(199 Posts)
MandMand Wed 03-Oct-12 21:27:36

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 ....

suebfg Wed 03-Oct-12 21:33:10

Most holiday clubs are based around state schools so we use them when we can and then book the time off when the state schools are still in school. I think you're looking at approx £25 - £30 per day of holiday club (8 - 6).

DS's private school doesn't offer proper holiday cover - it's just the odd week here and there.

difficultpickle Wed 03-Oct-12 21:34:30

Don't tell me they come home in the holidays? What are we paying for? <<joke>>

Ds attends a variety of holiday camps. They work out as expensive as the amount I pay each month in school fees.

Ds's new school has ridiculously long holidays and offers holiday clubs for the weeks that are outside normal holidays. I'm not overly happy that half term is a week before main half term and he has to return to school half way through the normal half term week (previous school had two weeks for this half term which worked well as we could go on cheap foreign holidays).

difficultpickle Wed 03-Oct-12 21:35:41

Pretty much all the clubs where we are work out at £40 per day for 8-6. £30 if you can do 9-4.30.

wigornian Thu 04-Oct-12 12:59:40

Fortunatley DS's prep school over a Holiday club for pupils and their friends - every holiday, excluding Christmas week. Quite good value really at £25 per day for a good range of activities.

diabolo Thu 04-Oct-12 19:59:00

I work in a school, so it's ideal for me - even so DS attends a variety of holiday clubs both at his current school and future school, which tend to be geared around the sports he enjoys.

SoldeInvierno Fri 05-Oct-12 15:35:06

Mine goes to a holiday club which takes place inside his school. It is run privately, but in line with the local private school holidays. There are several of them in the area for about £30 per day.

CMOTDibbler Fri 05-Oct-12 21:02:54

Ds's school runs holiday club 8-6 for 6 weeks in the summer, week at each half term, week at Christmas and 2 weeks at Easter - £25 a day. There is also football camp (10-3, £40 for 3 days) and externally run stuff which is also 10-3.

The wrap around care and reliable holiday care are why ds is at private school tbh - all state schools local to us would require huge amounts of juggling.

dixiechick1975 Sat 06-Oct-12 20:43:23

DD's only has 2 weeks extra holiday.

School runs a summer school for most of summer hols. She attends other holiday care eg at dance school in other holidays.

I take annual leave and we go away the 2 weeks she is off and state are still in (cheaper to go away then)

We save salary sacrifice vouchers (compushare) to pay for holiday care - I don't need to use childcare term times so can do this.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 08:53:06

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?

I look forward to the holidays so I can have time with my DW and DS. I want to see my boy grow up, not find out one day I was busy working when he needed me and then he is grown and gone.

To answer the question - my own school run clubs to give those children who do not have homes or parents to be somewhere safe. The staff are paid a pittence to run them (I doubt you would realise this). Some staff will do anything for money. I personally will not. I have never been asked
(fortunately as I guess they know I would refuse).

Never mind ..... half term begins the end of next week and I am off to spend time with my family. Have a good day.

OpheliasWeepingWillow Sun 07-Oct-12 08:57:20

Not terribly helpful Jabed I must say smile

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 09:00:27

Not helpful? I told the OP what happened to children in my independent school when parents wanted wrap around care including holidays.
I would have thought that as helpful as any reply here.

I just wondered why so many MNers seem to have children and then require someone else to look after them? Genuine question.

Sparklingbrook Sun 07-Oct-12 09:04:08

jabed go and start a thread in AIBU about it then. See what answers you get.

McPhee Sun 07-Oct-12 09:07:44

I would imagine of you can afford private education, then you can afford extra childcare

Just saying....

Sparklingbrook Sun 07-Oct-12 09:09:33

Hope nobody minds me asking but what is the thinking behind private schools having longer holidays than state?

seeker Sun 07-Oct-12 09:10:46

"I just wondered why so many MNers seem to have children and then require someone else to look after them? Genuine question."

So that they can afford to pay the private school fees that you, among others, consider a basic necessity of life?

Helpyourself Sun 07-Oct-12 09:10:46

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

coldcupoftea Sun 07-Oct-12 09:12:22

Jabed- perhaps because they need to work and most jobs don't give you 13 weeks holiday a year? hmm

Theas18 Sun 07-Oct-12 09:14:56

Longer holidays presumably because the parents want it I assumed? At least initially.
now they have shorter terms and line teaching days.

JollyJack Sun 07-Oct-12 09:15:32

I think the op was suggesting that long holidays and additional childcare are a hidden or unexpected cost of private schooling.

Around here our private schools only have slightly longer holidays than the state schools - it works out about 10 days per year.

McPhee Sun 07-Oct-12 09:20:39

I think it's wrong Sparkling. When you're paying for the education, shouldn't you have the same holidays as the other children within education? Why set them apart? It's wrong.

I've been wrapped up in the private schooling world for the last 13 years, as part of my job. I'm so against private schooling, it pains me to even take my charges. But, not my place to disagree.

blueshoes Sun 07-Oct-12 09:31:36

Private schools have on average an extra 2-3 weeks' more holiday than state school, so about 35 weeks compared to 37 weeks at state. With my 2 dcs in separate private schools that do not have holidays that coincide, I am having to find childcare for an extra 3 weeks a year. In total, I have to fund childcare outside of school for 20 weeks a year.

In reality, dh and I take some weeks off, the rest is covered by the aupair, whom we top up her pocket money for extra hours. There are summer aupairs that just help out over the hols and some families use that. But I use an aupair throughout the year so it is quite a simple thing to just ask her to take over.

Aupair is less expensive than holiday clubs once you have more than one child because it is the same cost whether it is one or two, as in my case.

blueshoes Sun 07-Oct-12 09:35:42

Longer holidays than the state system can be quite handy for taking holidays during the weeks when state is generally still on but private school has already broken up for the term. Booking holidays are still relatively cheaper and places
less crowded for those brief weeks.

For example, private schools generally start their summer holidays a week earlier than state schools. Many of senior managers/partners at my place of work (most of whom will use private schools) will start their summer hols over that week.

Sparklingbrook Sun 07-Oct-12 09:41:42

Oh well, that's a nice perk. Cheaper summer holidays and less people about.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 09:43:55

jabed go and start a thread in AIBU about it then. See what answers you get

I might just. Last time I started one of those I got told off for doing it.

Sparklingbrook Sun 07-Oct-12 09:46:55

Go for it jabed. You said it was a genuine question so you will get some genuine answers hopefully.

Hulababy Sun 07-Oct-12 09:47:12

I work in a state school so we have about 3 weeks holidays extra to cover. We use mixture of DH working from home, and dd staying with my parents or dh's parents, and occasionally she comes into school with me to help out.

Evn when I didn't work n schoos for a bit we found that private school holidays were already known by mst holiday companies, ESP at Easter and summer so the prices weren't really any cheaper.m Only one we ever found a bit cheaper was week before Christmas state school holidays began.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 09:55:45

Hope nobody minds me asking but what is the thinking behind private schools having longer holidays than state?

I think originally it was so that familes could have time together. Independent schools were used by middle class parents and aristocracy and those who lived and worked in colonies. They sent their DC to school during terms and had longer holidays to allow for travel and seeing their families

Many of our pupils still leave early even though we have much longer holidays. A few still stay all year (as they did in times of yore).

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 09:57:35

Jabed- perhaps because they need to work and most jobs don't give you 13 weeks holiday a year?

Then maybe their DC would be better off in a state school where they have shorter holidays. It might also be easier on their incomes?

Sparklingbrook Sun 07-Oct-12 09:59:46

Oh right jabed so possibly quite outdated now, but some private schools still want it that way?

trixymalixy Sun 07-Oct-12 10:18:12

hmmHaving kids in state school doesn't solve the problem Jabed. Even if DH and I used all our days holiday separately we couldn't cover the full number of school holidays. I want to have a holiday with my whole family so that's not going to happen, so we'll have to use a holiday club at some point.

I would love to be able to have all of the school holidays off to spend with my kids, but have no chance of being allowed to work term times only. That's the reality for working parents.

scarlettsmummy2 Sun 07-Oct-12 10:29:50

I love my children to death, but could not be at home all day- I am fortunate not to need to work but I choose to as I actually like using my brain and I think it sets a good example to my girls. It doesn't mean I love them any less than someone who doesn't work.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 11:07:17

One of the reasons I am selecting an independent school for my DS ( not the one I work in) is because of the longer holidays. I use that time to go to Canada (where DW comes from and we have a home).

I once knew a lady who put her children into independent schools because she was from a show family and they were always on the move and she wanted her child educated and that required her to place her child in boarding. It also meant she had longer holidays when they were at their busiest. The kid also hated school as it happens and independent school with its longer holidays was the main reason it was chosen.

I am also doing it because I really think that state schools spend too much time in the classroom and it really isnt healthy or helpful to a child to be
"educated" so long.

Time was state schools had the same holidays as independent schools (not so long ago even when I was a boy). Its state schols that moved, not independents.

orangeberries Sun 07-Oct-12 11:17:27

Is this question really aimed at primary level, as school holiday provision is pretty thin on the ground for secondary school of any flavour?

For what it's worth the difference in school holidays in our local-ish independents is only an extra 2 weeks per year in the summer, all of them are now pretty aligned to the state sector and make available holiday clubs for those 2 weeks.

Hulababy Sun 07-Oct-12 11:29:55

Yes I did want a child. I adore my child. I spend as much time as possible with my child. I have amended my working life in order to spend more time with DD. As a result I earn far less than I could. But I have a great work life balance. I am very lucky that DH has a well paid job that allows me to do so and one which also allows him to have weekends free, to spend time with DD morning and night and have decent holiday time.

I see DD every morning, every evening, every weekend and for 13 weeks of the holidays. However we cannot cover every holiday - we are 3 weeks short. So DD spends time during those with other people who she loves and who also love her dearly.

Neither DH or me work in order to pay school fees.

Besides there are many many people who have children at state school who struggle to cover the 13 weeks school holidays. Are these people also subject to the same criticism for having children and not being able to be with them in the holidays? Some people need to work in order to pay bills and give their children the standard of living they want for them.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 11:39:24

well, I was thinking mostly of those who complain about our extra holidays in independents - hence the comment put them in state schools.

However, I appreciate fully that even with breakfast clubs and after school /homework clubs and holiday clubs that are run there some parents may still be unhappy about not having child care. But that was not my initial question or interest.

Thanks.

ATourchOfInsanity Sun 07-Oct-12 11:41:17

My parents sent me to PGL for a week or two smile Loved it.

ATourchOfInsanity Sun 07-Oct-12 11:56:49

jabed you WORK at an independent? I would have been horrified to think an adult at my school, paid to look after me, was secretly despising my parent's choice. You must realise that kids are in schools like yours for a wide variety of reasons, and not everyone's parents can be as bad as you seem to assume? Or are they the enemy somehow? Bit confused by your morals if you seem happy to get a salary from such a monstrous system, as you see it hmm

Longer hols were handy for overseas pupils to fly across the planet and see more of their, very devoted, parents, in my experience.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 12:12:01

I am not despising nayones choice. I simply ask why, having made it, parents complain about one of the main factors involved - the holidays.

I do not see the independent system as monsterous. I see state schools with their breakfast clubs and shorter holidays as monsterous. That is why I am going to pay for my DS to go to a small prep near our home.

I know many of the pupils in my own school go home even earlier at Christmas and in the summer. So I guess their parents do not worry about child care?

I asked those parents who clearly do worry about the additional child care why they chose independents when they know about the holidays?

AuntieStella Sun 07-Oct-12 12:27:21

As pointed out, it's not just a private school question as many working parents in the state sector find the holidays longer then their leave allowance. Perhaps the question could be phrased in terms of "how can the DCs have a good time during the weeks of their holidays when both parents have used up their annual leave allowance? Especially for those weeks of private school holidays when the clubs based on state school holiday dates aren't running?"

OP: I think you need to look at using holiday clubs - especially ones thatfit children's interests like sports, dance or drama, for all the weeks that state schools are off. Then use your leave allowance to cover the ones which don't overlap. If you have GPs/siblings and can child swop some of those weeks, that extends the options. Or perhaps, and especially as the children get older, you could see if any of your friends have sensible sixth formers or ideally university aged DCs (as their terms are also shorter) who could baby sit.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 13:05:11

When I was a lad and my mother went out to work,I was farmed out to my grandmother or sometimes an aunt. I have vivid memories of this. I had been under the misguided view ( clearly) that grand parent day care and holiday care was the way things are going?

My DW tells me that where we are there is a church run holiday club which charges very little apparently. She knows this because she was asked if she might help being a SAHM and having some musical ( piano playing) ability as well as being a trained teacher (even if she is an OTT) . However, we will be away.

Perhaps there is something similar near you in a community hall or something? Have you checked?

suebfg Sun 07-Oct-12 13:09:48

Jabed, we don't all have the luxury of spending the 'summer' travelling, visiting friends etc. Some of us have to work for a living.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 13:14:57

We do not spend our summer travelling and visiting friends. We go to Canada. There are many other things we do not have for that I am sure. I work for a living too and have done all my life

marriedinwhite Sun 07-Oct-12 13:23:03

To answer your question OP:

I get 7 weeks holiday; DH takes about 5 weeks; we have a three week holiday each year. That covers a total of 10 weeks out of an overall total of 18 to 19 weeks hols (yes two different schools and not necessarily the same holiday dates). When the DC were smaller our au-pair (say from when dd was 6 and ds was 9 until dd was about 11 - was part time and didn't work in the hols before then) would help out for three or four weeks (with extra pay) although usually the dc did a morning activity during those weeks. That was 14 out of a possible 18 covered. Probably did a combination of two weeks at grannie's, own a pony week, camp beaumont, sailing, etc. with me and dh divvying up the taking and collecting - occasionally I worked 1/2 days for a fortnight.

Thank goodness they are 14 and nearly 18 now.

suebfg Sun 07-Oct-12 13:34:46

Well, you clearly benefit from longer holidays than most. Most people do have to juggle a lot to work around school hours, school holidays etc - it doesn't mean we don't want to spend time with our kids and it's offensive to suggest that's the case.

trixymalixy Sun 07-Oct-12 13:38:18

I just wondered why so many MNers seem to have children and then require someone else to look after them? Genuine question.

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?

These posts^^ come across as despising families where both parents work Jabed. You seem fortunate enough to have a term time only job.

In the real world most families aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford one parent staying at home, or to be able to work term time only, it's just not a choice that's available to them. That really is the holy grail of a working parent, and we can't all work in schools.

mummytime Belgium Sun 07-Oct-12 13:42:23

I wouldn't rely on Granny. Lots of Grannys have their own job, or own plans or aren't well enough.

jabed you seem to labouring under the misapprehension that "working full time" for most people means having 13 weeks holiday a year. It doesn't.

Additionally you have a very bizzare attitude towards the circumstances of parents who keep you in a job and enable you to have the lifestyle that you choose and many other parents would like.

OP our children are in state but both work FT - we juggle holidays between us and have make up the rest with sports clubs, holiday clubs and family care.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 14:05:33

In the real world most families aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford one parent staying at home, or to be able to work term time only, it's just not a choice that's available to them. That really is the holy grail of a working parent, and we can't all work in schools

I would beg to differ. In the real world of independent schooling most parents no doubt could have the choice. School fees are expensive outlays and so if they did not make that outlay they would not need additional holiday child care or if they did, it would be covered easily by any salary saved in going state

I also think that many more parents could if they wanted manage on one salary.

I do not work full time anymore. I was eased out into retirement a few yearsago. Yes, I have done the 24/7 but it isnt worth it. There are no thanks for it. I would hate my DS never seeing me and growing up thinking that was right.

The income in my household is not excessive but I do not complain. My DW does not work. She does not want to and I respect that. We have what we need and we go without other things to go to Canada (but we only pay plane fares anyway). It depends on where the priorities are really doesnt it?

blueshoes Sun 07-Oct-12 14:12:30

jabed: "I would hate my DS never seeing me and growing up thinking that was right."

So children of working parents never see their parents. Of course they do, you numpty. It is as much, if not more, about your personal needs to spend more time with your dcs (which is your choice) than it necessarily is about the dcs to spend time with their parents. And giving children the best education you can afford as a parent is a way of caring for them too. As is giving them a leg up re: tuition fees, house deposits down the road.

Personally, it is great for me and my family having the extra cash. Your financially circumscribed life sounds somewhat joyless, but I guess for you it must be rich in other ways ...

marriedinwhite Sun 07-Oct-12 14:12:50

And your point is *Jabed*? We could manage on one salary and pay the school fees. Many do and many can where our children go to school. I happen to like work.

MrsShortfuse Sun 07-Oct-12 14:15:01

Jabed you have a rather simplistic view of life.

You know all the people who provide the services that you enjoy during the holidays with ds and dw, people who run parks and swimming pools, lifeguards on beaches, pilots and airport staff who facilitate your holidays to Canada - do you think they shouldn't have children then? And the site staff at your school who no doubt work all through the holidays to have the place looking spotless ready for the children's return?

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 14:24:08

The number of SAHM in Canada is far higher than the UK. I guess I take my baseline from that.

My " holiday" in fact is just returning home. Its not a vacation. As for staff making my school spotless whilst I am away - no, they dont.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 14:25:13

Personally, it is great for me and my family having the extra cash. Your financially circumscribed life sounds somewhat joyless, but I guess for you it must be rich in other ways ...

You are clearly cash driven. I am not.

MrsShortfuse Sun 07-Oct-12 14:45:20

The purpose of your flight is irrelevant and you're missing the point. The people in the UK who make your flight possible, during the UK school holidays -what do you suggest they do with their children whilst they are making your flight possible?

difficultpickle Sun 07-Oct-12 14:46:14

I manage on one salary and pay school fees, albeit ds has a good scholarship. If I gave up work ds would have to move schools and we would have to apply to be housed by the council. Being a SAHM is not available to all, particularly single parents.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 14:50:32

Mrsshortfuse, I do not go on hoilday during the state school holidays. I even leave two days before the independent school holidays begin. So its a normal working day isnt it?

EnjoyGOLDResponsibly Sun 07-Oct-12 15:03:21

To answer your actual question OP:

1. I work part time and turn down offers of additional hours/ responsibility to ensure I have days free in the holiday. Luckily DHs salary facilitates ths family choice.

2. On the days I do work the DC go to grandparents (which all love) or the school holiday club which is fantastic. Frankly the lady that runs it could double her charge and still have a queue.

Jabbed, honestly you should think of spending more time in Canada where hopefully your broadband reception is at best intermittent.

hatsybatsy Sun 07-Oct-12 15:12:56

OP - it is possible - I either take holiday or the kids go to friends' houses or they go to holiday clubs offered by local independent schools. The camps round here (SE London) are £40-£45 per day.

jabed - so if parents are struggling for childcare during independent school holidays because they work, then they should ditch work and put the kids in state education. If they don't do this then they are bad parents who care very little about their children. And all this from an independent school teacher??? What drivel. You are fortunate enought to own a second property overseas and to have enough income that neither you nor your wife work full time. You go overseas every holiday - well bully for you. Your comments about state school holidays having changed (to become shorter) since you 'were a lad' (do people really still speak like that?) are odd - unless you became a father at age 60 - state and independent holidays have been very different for at least the last 50 years......

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 18:37:02

Jabbed, honestly you should think of spending more time in Canada

I would love to! I already spend as much time as I am allowed there. One day though......

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 18:40:50

so if parents are struggling for childcare during independent school holidays because they work, then they should ditch work and put the kids in state education. If they don't do this then they are bad parents who care very little about their children

No, I asked why they complain. They have choices. if they want to work and afford fees that way, I am fine with it but they really should know we have longer holidays and they have to deal with it. get organised instead of complaining perhaps?

Alternatively there is state education where they can get longer school terms and so no need for childcare arrangements.

Its is not a reflection on their parenting so much as an observation that some Mners do not seem to think things through.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 18:46:02

unless you became a father at age 60

Not quite but close there.

I have a home in Canada because I worked there and bought it back in the 1980's. I held on to it when I returned here.

I married a Canadian. She is younger than me.

I respect her wish to stay at home. I would do whatever it took to enable that. Yes I have an income from retiring early but I still have to work part time.

And yes, when I was a lad ( and some people do still speak like that ) the school leaving age was still 15 and I had friends who even left at 14 even though it was not official. Things were very different in the 1960's and 70's. and yes, school holidays were longer for everyone.

camptownraces Sun 07-Oct-12 18:52:16

Hatsybatsy is right.

As soon as holidays start, some independent schools hire out their premises to firms who offer day-care, play-schemes, call them what you will.

OP: look around well in advance to see what is available in your area.
These firms must advertise -they want the business.

suebfg Sun 07-Oct-12 19:03:09

Jabed, I sense you may be of a different generation than most of us on this thread. Surely you can recognise that things have changed - there's more pressure financially on families; house prices have rocketed over the years; the retirement age is being pushed out and let's not forget that more women are brought up with the expectation/ambition of working and being independent. You do sound a bit out of touch tbh.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 19:15:17

Jabed, I sense you may be of a different generation than most of us on this thread. Surely you can recognise that things have changed - there's more pressure financially on families; house prices have rocketed over the years; the retirement age is being pushed out and let's not forget that more women are brought up with the expectation/ambition of working and being independent. You do sound a bit out of touch tbh

I am certainly of a different generation to most of you. I acknowledge that. It often means I recall things you youngsters never knew happened.

I recognise things have changed but I would not say that was always for the better. Yes many wonmen work and want careers. have ambitions in work etc but that does not allow thenm to expect to use schjools as their free baby care and parent substitute surely?

I do not buy into the financial pressure thing. Even when I was a young man a house cost a lot of money and most could not afford that without hardship. I went without many things. I didnt have holidays, I didnt have a new car
(or even an old one) until I was over 30. I lived through the 1980's Thatcher years with its high unemployment, belt tightening, high house prices and cost of living and high unemployment and was the first to be told " a job is not for life" "get on your bike" etc.

I am also among those now affected by the raising of the retirement age in this country to 66. It catches me by 2 weeks - thats a bummer!

I am not out of touch by any means.

ATourchOfInsanity Sun 07-Oct-12 19:30:26

Jabed - Yes but you are still thinking about your situation. You haven't realised that although you had the boom of the 80's and low house prices and were probably at the peak of your career around then, most of us are struggling to peak at our career in the worst downturn in decades. Add to that one of the highest child care costs in the world forcing women to work all hours or give up work altogether to look after their children you have a huge deficit in 'living' in the real world here and now. You got your houses when prices were low. Many people on this thread may not even own one house because prices are unobtainable and renting is now the norm, leaving little or no inheritance. So a few people decide to educate their kids in the hope they will change this situation in the future and you bemoan the parents for not thinking about the small detail of 2 weeks holidays?

This OP was about advice, not personal ideas about if parents should put their kids into private/independent schools.

difficultpickle Sun 07-Oct-12 19:33:01

A lot of people I know have chosen independent schooling precisely because of childcare issues. All prep schools I know offer wraparound care. None of the local primary schools do. Doesn't get over the long holidays issue but makes the other 38 weeks a year easier.

jabed Sun 07-Oct-12 20:25:25

I answered the OP -twice in fact - concerning how child care issues might be dealt with practically.

I just asked a further question.

As for what it was like in the 1980's, you clearly have no idea. Neither it seems do you know about the 1990's and the negative equity many got into when the house prices bombed ( just like now). Nothing changed.

I was prudent. I bought within my means. I have never spent. Many did not do as I did just as many do not now. Thats why I am where I am. I got my home in Canada because I worked there. I would have liked to have stayed but Canadian employment rules and something we do not do here-
"Canadians first" meant I lost my post in a down turn and came home. I kept my house. That was the only lucky break I had. The rest has been slog. Dont think you have it so bad. It was just as bad before. Its not new and its no worse.

ATourchOfInsanity Sun 07-Oct-12 20:38:55

Erm, actually Jabed the house prices went up and up in the 80/90's and bombed in the 00's. I was working for (it seems now) one of the few solicitors advising couples not to accept massive loans from banks. I am aware of what those people said to her and how she was just jealous, etc etc. Yes, they probably had their houses remortgaged/repossessed but that is by the by. You clearly didn't take out a loan at this time or over stretch yourself; well done.
I bet your house in Canada has gone up in price, as well as the one you have here. Which takes me back to the point, you are not seeing this from the position of one starting with all of the crap left behind from the previous decades, you are starting it as someone who has two houses.

We have massively deviated from the OP though. I think the thread may well be dead sad

difficultpickle Sun 07-Oct-12 20:42:57

House prices bombed at the end of the 1980s/early 1990s.

Big difference between then and now is the availability of mortgages and level of deposits didn't change. In fact there were 125% mortgages available to help those in negative equity (if they were mad enough to go for them).

margerykemp Sun 07-Oct-12 21:16:12

Well us women can't have dcs 'just short of 60'

You saved up during your adult life cos you didn't have dcs to pay for

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 05:56:06

Insanity - they bottomed out in the late 1990's. I know because I moved house at the bottom of the curve. They went up after that.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 06:06:22

You saved up during your adult life cos you didn't have dcs to pay for

That is certainly true.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 06:16:54

House prices:

I looked into buying my first house in the mid 1970's. A terraced town house was around 8K then. Though most of you whiipper snappers would consider that a "dump" these days. They were solid unmodernised homes.

You needed a 10% deposit. Getting a mortgage was not easy. I was still a student then and had to borrow off family-and I used the house to allow them to stay. House prices rose steadily from then to the mid 1980's

In the mid 1980's ( 1985) I bought my first "home" It cost me 21K. I didnt have a mortgage . It was what you would still call a " dump" today - unmodernised.

Just after that the prices started to rocket. Even dumps were over 100K in the next 5 years. I held the house. I was working in Canada. I bought a house in Canada (prices being better!) Around 1989 prices bombed and many people had negative equity from the 80's " loads a money" boom.

I was back in the UK around 1992. After 1994 prices started to rise and the flatlined. In 1999 , the curve was bottom. Thats when I made my " big move" and got a good home - still unmodernised. smile

Just after ( incredible really, I did not expect it) prices started to rocket again. That went on through the 2000's until the bust in 2008.

The housing market , ladies ( and any gentlemen?)

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 06:27:38

Well us women can't have dcs 'just short of 60'

Actually I was 51 when my DS came along. Many women can have DC at that age. My DW was younger though ( much younger than me).
Thats makes me 57 coming 58 now in case you need help with the maths smile
(maths is my subject)

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 06:33:12

Mortgages - when I bought my home in 1999 mortgages were not that easy to get. I had a good deposit and asked for a relatively small mortgage ( peanuts in fact - 30K) Interest rates were high ( 5% ish?) . I paid it off in less than 5 years. But that was by sheer hard work, slog and saving. In fact that was around the height of my career financially also.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 07:20:04

Of course all of this is relative to income. In 1981, my salary was less than 5K and that was considered good money for a young graduate. So really things were not so good then any more than now. My first "wage" (in 1979 ) was £35 a week.

CaseyShraeger Mon 08-Oct-12 08:12:31

It's just not the case that many women can have children at 51. There is a strange tendency I've seen among otherwise intelligent and well-educated men to focus on average age of menopause (51-52) and ignore the massive drop-off in fertility that takes place before that. I don't know whether you fall into that category or are just joshing with us by pretending naïveté.

blueshoes Mon 08-Oct-12 08:20:08

Casey, I am not sure I would call someone who thinks many women have children at 51 as 'well educated' ...

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 08:26:44

Casey - there is a strange misconception ( pardon the pun) about women being fertile these days. It never seems to have been there in the past. The NHS do not keeprecords of women over 50 who have babies. They lump it in with the over 40's. In the past, before birth control it was well established that women would have "late pregnancies". I went to school with several who had mums who were over 50 when they were conceived. My own family has several instances of elderly ( over fifty - as old as fifty five in fact) giving birth. These children survived and were normal too and were my aunts and uncles and cousins.

Its naother of those falacies that goes around like house prices, mortgages or household income.

However, my DW is was only in her thirties when she had our DS. I married a lady much younger than myself. She was one of my students although by the time I married her she had left college. Oh the outrage smile

Ginda Mon 08-Oct-12 08:37:38

So, Jabed, you appear to be in a position where you are mortgage-free, you have a holiday home in Canada which you can afford to pay for flight to for your family regularly, you have a part-time only job, a wife who does not work at all, and you can afford private school fees for your child.

I put it to you that, while you scorn parents who work all hours and suggest that they are inadequate parents as a result, you yourself are in the privileged position of not having to worry about money. You say you go without things so you probably don't consider yourself rich, but in fact you are. Maintaining the lifestyle you describe is just not how most people live. We have to work all hours just to pay bills. I don't have a holiday home, or a non-working partner, and I would love to be at home with my DCs more, but I am out of the house 7.30am-7.30pm every day working to pay the bills. I have 5 weeks' holiday a year. My DCs are in state schools. There are 13 weeks of holidays a year. I think the sneering tone you've taken towards working parents betrays a complete lack of understanding of how most people have to (not want to) live.

Helpyourself Mon 08-Oct-12 08:39:38

jabed the fact that you can afford children as you had them when you were in your 50s makes your opinions on childcare costs as irrelevant as a lottery winner's.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 08:43:05

I put it to you that, while you scorn parents who work all hours and suggest that they are inadequate parents as a result

I have not said this at all. I have just asked why parents - any parents who have DC in independent schools complain about our longer holidays . They should know about it when they register. They should therefore know they have to deal with the child care issue if they have one. That is all I have said.

It annoys me they complain/have problems about something they should be amply prepared for.

Ginda Mon 08-Oct-12 08:47:45

Oh, and my DCs' state primary offers no before or after school clubs at all. They won't make any parents' evening appointments after 5pm because the teachers want to go home. So if you have a job which you have to stay at till 6pm an then travel half an hour home, well, tough luck. Take one of your precious holiday days off instead, meaning one day less with your DCs in THEIR holidays.

I suspect this level of fuckwittery in the state system is why working parents who can afford it might choose private schools: private schools cater better for parents who have jobs.

Ginda Mon 08-Oct-12 08:50:50

Jabed, see my last post. Length of holidays is, I imagine, fairly low on the list o selection criteria when parents are choosing schools. They probably consider things like how good the school is, whether it caters for their child' interests, etc., first. However, having made the choice, and particularly since they are paying, working parents might express the view that arranging holiday childcare is a pain and it would be good if the schools ran longer.

To say I think your posts on this thread are disingenuous would be extremely generous. I am going to work now. Have a nice day riding on your high horse.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 08:58:49

So, Jabed, you appear to be in a position where you are mortgage-free, you have a holiday home in Canada which you can afford to pay for flight to for your family regularly, you have a part-time only job, a wife who does not work at all, and you can afford private school fees for your child

I have a home in Canada - not a holiday home. I have a Canadian DW. My DS has Canadian nationality. Otherwise it is a fair assessment. smile

But I am not wealthy by any means. I did not marry when younger because I could not afford it. I worked and I saved and I have spent many years without any hoiday at all. I have never lived in fancy houses with losts of mod cons etc. That even includes the sort of thing you may take for granted. That is where my disposable income seems to come from - being a bit of a skinflint in other ways. DW keeps a good table.

I delayed having a family for that reason too. I left it late (as indeed do some ladies these days it seems). I consider myself to be the luckiest guy on the planet to have my DW and DS.

I do not buy the idea that most families "need" two incomes to pay the bills. It seems to me too many people seem to have a different idea of what is necessary and what is a luxury.

remsby Mon 08-Oct-12 09:02:50

If you're still here OP:
If you belong to a David Lloyd gym, their holiday clubs encompass time that independent schools are off.

Ginda Mon 08-Oct-12 09:21:56

Jabed, you are totally out of touch with reality. How you came by your money is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that you now have a lot of disposable income that most people do not have. We DO need more than one income. My mortgage is £500 a month, not massive at all. My house is probably worth £240k, it's a small 3 bed mid terraced house. My childcare is £650 a month, and that is with a close family member doing the childcare (yes, family do expect payment). Food and petrol (for an 80 mile round trip to work) is £550 a month. Council tax and utility bills take up another £400 a month. That's £1900 a month gone.

Very nice for you to have saved so long that you are mortgage free and can afford for your wife not to work now that you have a young child even though you are in your late 50s. One view might be that children benefit from having a father young enough to live beyond the child's early adulthood. But I guess you'll leave them well provided for, so well done you.

Ginda Mon 08-Oct-12 09:24:11

I take that back - it's £2,100 a month gone.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 09:36:05

Jabed - are you a real person? Cannot understand how anyone can be so patronising? Your suggestion that any family with 2 working parents has lost sight of what is 'necessary' versus 'luxury' is absurd.

When you first bought a home, it cost 3-4 times your salary. Our home today cost 14 times my husband's salary. To afford it, we both need to work. We can only afford independent education with generous help from our family.

We were fully aware that there were long holidays when we chose an independent school - but to suggest we should not have chosen it for that reason is, again, absurd. We chose the school we liked the best for our children, and we now have to deal with the logistics.

The OP came on here to get some suggestions for holiday care for herchildren - not to whinge about long holidays as such. You have effectively taken over this thread - initially with a rant asking why people had kids if they dn't want to look after them, and now with stealth boasts about how wealthy and financially astute you are. When in fact, you are someone who has done very well out of the property markets in Canada and the UK (oh to have a £30k mortgage) and who didn't get married until financially comfortable (a lucky circumstance rather than clever planning). And to state that woman can habitually have children well into their fifties defies belief. Well done to your family - clearly you are super fertile. For the average woman, having a baby beyond 40 is exceptional - having one at 55 is record breaking.

Have a biscuit

clam Mon 08-Oct-12 09:50:21

Your wife "keeps a good table?"

Who are you, Charles Dickens?

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 10:52:49

Jabed, you are totally out of touch with reality. How you came by your money is irrelevant

Ginda, how I came by my situation is completely relevant. You have two choices as far as I can see. You do as I did and wait ubtil you can afford a family oryou do as you have done and stretch the finances such that you are in some difficulty really. It certainly cannot be worry free and comfortable for you.

Hatsbatsay
Having a mortgage 14 times your DH's salary is not prudent.
I was prudent but I possibly nearly left it too late for a family.

Generally,

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+.

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.

I did the opposite and very nearly didnt have a family. But at least I am aware of my mistake. It anoys 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)

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 10:55:42

I never suggested having childrern late in life was general. However it is more normal than you suggest. Its always been a factor. 55 is not record breaking. The oldest naturally recorded conception and live birth was to a 58 year old around 2000 I think. In the 1950; when I was born, many more olderladies had children. Many were probably just around menopause. Ny the way average age of menopause for women today is 54. Thats a statistic.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:07:08

jabed - I said the house was worth 14 times dh's salary - I did not say our mortgage was at that level. (you are not the only one with financial acumen) - I was using that as an illustration of how the housing market has changed since you were lucky enough to get on it.

You are genuinely saying that women should put off having kids until their fifties in order to be financially secure? I think you have lost the plot completely. If you had been lucky enough to fall in love with a woman the same age as you in your early twenties, you would have deliberately put off having kids for 30 years so that you could provide them with the kind of lifestyle you have now?????

None of us are being demanding or unrealistic with the financial choices we make - having large overheads is a part and parcel of modern life. You have been extremely lucky with how your finances have played out.

Your ds may well be young enough to enjoy his inheritance (poor you - not having parents who were thoughtful enough to plan this for you...) but in the meantime he has a father who is old enough to be his grandfather.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:07:56

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)

There I will say it again. If the OP has had to ask this then she did not consider the situation. The only solution is alternative childcare. Simple as.

margerykemp Mon 08-Oct-12 11:11:30

Jabed- you married one of your students!!!???

margerykemp Mon 08-Oct-12 11:12:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

margerykemp Mon 08-Oct-12 11:12:28

<awaits deletion>

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:12:40

jabed dear - the whole purpose behind this thread was so the OP could work out how the organise alternative childcare. the fact that she didn't begin planning her baby 30 years ago is really quite normal you know.

moonbells Mon 08-Oct-12 11:12:50

I've been dreading school holidays since DS was born, since both DH and I work f/t and neither of us can go p/t. He gets 4 weeks, I am luckier and get 6, but that's still 3 weeks fewer than state holidays, and if we go away together for a family holiday of just one week, we are 4 in deficit. We have no parents able to take him for a week (mine are over 80 and frail, DH's are too busy to have him hmm). So we are going to use the old nursery as long as we can (he can go there to 5y3mo) and then we're into Holiday Club territory. Even then, we will struggle as the hours they work are less than I'm contracted for!

So yes, it's a real pain. And we only have one!

And to answer Jabed on the over 50's having babies, er, I suspect at least some of those 'parents' would have actually been the grandparents stepping in to cover an ooops...!

MoreBeta Mon 08-Oct-12 11:15:28

We pay for holiday clubs - as we dont want them hanging about in the street and go out with them and occasisonally invite friends over who have children same age as ours.

However, most people by the time their children reach age 11 at local private day schools just seem to let them wander about in the street while they go to work.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:15:55

Just to correct my own facts here, the oldestrecorded natural ( not IVF) birth was to a woman of 59 in 2007 in the UK. The previous one to that was 57.

More unusual I think was the fact the lady concerned had her first child at 49 ten years earlier. Just goes to show folks. Its not just us old men who are getting it on over 50! smile

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:16:21

jabed - it annoys me beyond belief that old fogies like you come onto ths forum and actively seek to misunderstand a post.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:17:00

Jabed - you talk about not getting married earlier as though you had people queueing up at the door asking to marry you and you had to turn them away because you weren't in a financial position to support them grin.

Also, you conveniently shy away from discussing whether all these women who had babies in their 50s in the past actually planned to have them, then, or whether it was a failure of birth control after having had the family they actually wanted at a younger age... which I strongly suspect was more usually the case with later pregnancies, which did happen and are the reason why the link between genetic defects and older age of parents (BOTH parents, NOT just the mother) has been known and understood for far longer than science has been able to show why that is the case... because human beings are NOT designed to have their babies in their 50s. You know perfectly well, I would have thought, that women who got pregnant in their 50s in the 1950s were far more likely to be pitied or criticised for their foolishness than to be applauded for their financial acumen.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:17:49

sorry MNers - he cannot be real. biscuit

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:18:35

Jabel - some of us aren't two parent families!!!! If I don't work, then there is no one to pay the school fees, or the holiday clubs or keep a roof above our heads - unless I wanted the state to do all of that for me of course!
Life takes unexpected turns.

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 11:18:47

Plus none of this has anything to do with the OP. confused

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:19:10

And to answer Jabed on the over 50's having babies, er, I suspect at least some of those 'parents' would have actually been the grandparents stepping in to cover an ooops...!

You should have told that to my dad - you would have gone home red faced. His mother had him in her fifties. He was brought up for six yearsbelieving she was his grandmother because his elder sister had a baby at the same time and they were brought up together ( in those days they all lived in the same house) . He often used to comment on finding out his " gran" was his mum. But he loved her.

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 11:19:59

jabed I think you have gone off on a tangent.....

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:23:24

None of this has anything to do with the OP. rabbitstew.I had opportunities when I was younger. suffice?

The OP just has to get to grips with it.

I have said through this thread

a) in the independent where I work there is some holiday club provision .I dont know how much it costs though.

b) my DW told me that locally a community church ran a holiday club at very small cost it seems. I said could the OP investigate if she had something similar in her area.

c) granny care/aunty care seems to be most popular.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:24:04

Exactly, jabed - he had a much older sister. In other words, your grandmother was probably one of those women who had a failure of birth control post-bringing up the family she had planned, rather than a planned pregnancy at 50... and it was so odd in his eyes, it took him a while to believe she wasn't his grandmother. Or maybe she really bucked the trend and fancied having another baby to keep her daughter company?...

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 11:24:11

So there's nothing left to say then.....

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:24:15

In answer to the MandMand - the long summer holidays make me sweat buckets & heaps of cash.
Some of the summer clubs don't run long enough to cover holidays, so I try and book holiday myself for those weeks. My DS is autistic (another thing you can't plan for Jabed) and he hates most clubs, so I use a childminder & some smaller clubs that he can cope with. DD mercifully will do anything & go anywhere, so she is easy - but the logistics of getting them to different places at different times & trying to work is a giant nightmare.

This year, I had an operation (which I did need) performed in the summer holidays so that I would actually be at home & I could actually spend some time with the DCs & not have to cough up a fortune in holiday club money.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:25:08

Be real? You know, I wonder the same about some of you too. £2100 outgoings and mortgages 14 X income? I doubt a bank would have allowed that any time.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:26:59

Could you not have married one of your opportunities and then waited with her until you were both financially ready to have children? Or did you not actually love any of these opportunities enough to marry them? Or did you calculate that by the time you were likely to be financially ready to have children, your spouse would be a bit old to have them? (eg in her 50s....).

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:27:39

I dont think the words planned or birth control were particularly common in any era before 1960 .

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:28:10

(question directed at jabed, of course...)

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:28:46

Condoms of one sort or another have existed since Roman times or before... grin

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:29:48

So we could put it down to lack of female emancipation and education, then?

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:31:09

jabed - are you unable to keep up? the house cost 14 times dh's salary - our mortagage is not at that level. The reality of today's housing market is that very few first time buyers are able to buy a house that costs 3 times their salary. that was my point.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:31:55

Rabbitstew, it may be that because I work in an independent school I see far more mature ( for a better phrase) parents. Therefore I never feel out of place. I also pointed out my wife was young.

Add to that none of the research you "quote" is more than correlational.

Of course I understand the statistical risks but it always amazes me how I have met few of them amongst those I have come into contact. On the other hand I have met a lot of children whose parents ( mothers) were young who seem to have SN children.

However, we off on a tangent as others keep pointing out.
I will leave it there.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:35:53

harsbatsy ( I see others like to mispel my name too but lets not worry) - £2100 outgoings a month? Thats not real.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:36:20

Well, you didn't meet many of these children in the 1950s because they were institutionalised. And you don't meet many of them at your private school, because they wouldn't get a place there. And because some parents choose not to give birth to them. My father was a doctor and he saw the link clearly enough.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:37:44

rabbitstwe, whilst no expert, even I am not that old,I dont think condoms were in common usage in most married relationships.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:38:10

You would be amazed how many families in the past had secret siblings that the world never got to know about, because of the shame and embarrassment.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:38:45

:ets getoff this shall we? I have met a lot of very normal people who had older parents . Thats enough for me.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:39:32

Are all those MNers here with SN children old ladies then? Didnt use condoms obviously.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:39:35

jabed - that's my point. Women weren't even told they could have any control over their bodies and pregnancies. They were expected to be chaste before marriage and then submit to their husband's requests after marriage and accept any consequences.

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:40:09

Good grief Jabed, are you suggesting their is a correlation between younger mothers & increased numbers of special needs children?
My autistic son (special needs) goes to a school that specialises in teaching boys with special needs - but it doesn't sound as though you work there - because if you did you'd realise that there are quite alot of "mature" parents of special needs children too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't quite believe I'm typing this.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:43:27

Jabed - have had a look at some of your other posts on mn -they alays seem to end in a bun fight because you are unable to understand that not everybody makes the same "choices" as you.

Not everybody turns down marriage proposals in their twenties so that they can become financially secure. Not everyone is a teacher who runs away with one of their students. Not everyone congratulates themselves on having kids late enough to enable them to enjoy their inheritance.

Most people are pedalling fast to keep going. Outgoings of £2100 per month are pretty standard. Most people have kids before they turn 40.

Your repeated assertions that you know people int heir 50's who have had "normal" children while you know lots of younger mothers who have not had "normal" children are quite frankly offensive.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:43:32

Jabed - just don't be so judgmental of others when your own choices have carried risks which you don't want to have to face up to. You took risks, they were just different ones from those that other people take. It really is patronising to look at other people, having got away with your choices, and tell them that they have got their life assessment all wrong. How would you like it if your child did have aspergers and someone suggested it was because you foolishly left it so late to have children?

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:46:06

Life is not risk free. You remove one risk and you expose yourself to another. Nobody ever wants things to go wrong, but things do. Unexpectedly, often, or because the right opportunities don't come up at the right times. You cannot plan your life perfectly from cradle to grave.

MandMand Mon 08-Oct-12 11:48:25

OP back again - this has taken off a bit from where it started, but thanks to everyone who has taken the trouble to explain how they manage to make it work. Lots of food for thought.

Mine are at state primary with still a few years to go until we need to make decisions about secondary, so its also interesting to hear about the lack of holiday clubs for older children. At what age do people stop arranging holiday childcare for secondary age children and leave them to their own devices?

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:48:58

PBB - as I understand it a lot more women delay pregnancy these days anyway so I would expect to see far more mature parents in all groups.

No I do not equate SN with age ( but I beleive there is correlation at both ends of the spectrum statistically). Whilst you see lots of mature parents with SN children I see many mature parents with normal ones in my independent school ( no issue there - older parents can afford it I guess) . So we both see the results of an older breeding population. Nothing odd about that.

The strangeness comes from those who seem to think that the population must skew . If that were the case then you should see all the older parents in SN and I should see none at all in my school. But hey, some people cant help but take side shots to suppost their own positions.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:52:02

If all parents had children in their 50s and not before, the population would be affected. You just can't help taking side shots to support your own position (ie that of a father of advanced years who oh so sensibly delayed marriage until he was financially secure, in the confident belief that he would one day be financially secure and find a woman desperate to marry him).

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:53:24

strange that we seem to think the population must skew? what are you on about? statistically, older mothers have higher risks of having children with chromosonal abnormalities. This doesn't mean they all will - just that they are mor likely to - assume as a maths teacher you can get your head around that?

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:53:52

Most people are pedalling fast to keep going. Outgoings of £2100 per month are pretty standard

well, in the national scheme of things on average wages ( let alone minimum wages which are pretty modal) most people do not earn £2100 a month to have that as outgoings. Even when they have two incomes. Sorry, who is out of touch now?

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:54:57

jabed - does your school actually have provision to teach special needs children? Most private schools don't, unless they have chosen to specialise & be a special needs school. So, unless your school has chosen to teach SN kids, then you won't get to see them at your school, because it is not representative of the community in which it is based.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 11:55:03

MandMand - it would be nice to get back to your OP... I also wonder at what age other people start leaving their children to their own devices in the holidays! And the weird thing is, I don't even remember what my own parents did about it.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:55:26

Your repeated assertions that you know people int heir 50's who have had "normal" children while you know lots of younger mothers who have not had "normal" children are quite frankly offensive

Have you considered your own offensiveness?

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:56:02

who is out of touch? erm - the person with 2 houses, no mortgage who works part time and whose wife "keeps a good table"

We're not really talking about the national average here are we? We're talking about people who have mortgages and who have to pay school fees and/or childcare.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:56:26

who am I being offensive to exactly? You?

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 11:58:41

OP - I reckon by the time they hit 11, they can be allowed some free time? Perhaps a mix of holiday clubs/PGL/seeing friends and being trusted to look after themselves? Pretty sure I was allowed to by that age - but then I was a sensible girl - not entirely sure ds will be entirely dependable??!

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 11:59:46

ie that of a father of advanced years who oh so sensibly delayed marriage until he was financially secure, in the confident belief that he would one day be financially secure and find a woman desperate to marry him

I never thought that and I have not said I did. All I thought about was keeping a job and putting a roof over my head. That was life. I have said here I was a lucky guy to get my DW (and my DS)

No, I didnt have proposals coming through the door. I am a bloke who grew up in blokey times. Even in the 1980's ladies didnt do much proposing generally.

MoreBeta Mon 08-Oct-12 12:00:18

Leaving DS1 on his own or wandering the street even at age 11 would not be a good option

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:01:09

ROFL at the idea of anyone proposing to jabed......

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 12:01:50

I have DC of 13 and 10. I would leave the 13 year old now, he is v sensible. but I wouldn't leave them together in case the squabbling started.

They do football clubs in the holidays which tend to be 9.30-3pm.

I don't work at the moment but i want to get a job after Christmas so all this will become very important. I could do with term time 10-2 hours. grin

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:03:22

Well, don't you know, we could all have two houses and no mortgage if we lived with mum and dad for years so as not to have to waste money on rent (which is more expensive than a most mortgages....), saved loads of money up for a deposit and then bought a shell of a house with no plumbing or electricity, did nothing to modernise it because we didn't want to spend any money, and then sold it on when the housing market had hugely increased its value without any work or further outlay required from us grin.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:04:08

Mine are at state primary with still a few years to go until we need to make decisions about secondary, so its also interesting to hear about the lack of holiday clubs for older children. At what age do people stop arranging holiday childcare for secondary age children and leave them to their own devices?

Around where I live 13 generally. However, I wouldnt take that as gospel. I think the church holiday clubs I mentioned will take care of kids up to 16 in their youth section. My school takes kids to 16 in the holiday clubs.

airedailleurs Mon 08-Oct-12 12:04:53

DD has 3 weeks extra holiday and my OH and I both work full-time. We manage like this: I take the odd day off during that time, or she can come to work with me if nobody else is there, or she goes to work with OH. Her school does offer a holiday club but it's quite expensive and we don't use it.

And private school days are typically longer than state school so it works out that the time in school is about the same taken over the whole year.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:05:55

Surely OP should have fully investigated this before getting herself pregnant though Jabed? Looking into it now with only a few years to spare is not prudent (in jabed land)

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:06:22

At what age do people generally start trusting their children to be able to get themselves to after school activities? (eg orchestras, etc, if they don't take place within the school itself).

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:07:55

For ds, I reckon the suggestion of age 13 as being reliable is probably right? He's so easily distracted - am not sure he will have grown out of that by 11? dd on the other hand, could probably be trusted sooner - head screwed on the right way!

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:07:57

jabed - does your school actually have provision to teach special needs children?

Actually we do but not very many come our way. I think we currently have two ASD on roll. They have special provision made for them ( as their parents wish). We did have ( left this year as she was 16 ) one MLD child. That is about it really in SN

We have rather more dyslexics ( mild usually) but we do not specialise there and thats not SN in the sense I think you mean.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:13

statistically, older mothers have higher risks of having children with chromosonal abnormalities

Statistically younger mothers also carry a similar risk.

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:21

Well there you go - that's why you don't see many of them at your school! It has nothing to do with the age or wealth of the parents at your school - but quite simply because your school doesn't take SN kids.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:10:38

Jabed - that is becasue most parents with SN children have made other provision for them - I certainly woldn't want a SN child of mine coming to a school where even one of the teachers referred to them as being not "normal".

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:13:16

Why doesn't dyslexia count???? I don't see that as a special case, or different from other types of special educational need.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:15:02

ROFL at the idea of anyone proposing to jabed......

Well, when I did propose, she said yes. Thats all it needs isnt it? At least she doesnt require me to have outgoings of £2100 a month and think its normal smile

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:15:29

What do you mean by younger mothers, jabed? Presumably you don't mean mothers in their 20s and 30s?????? The risk of chromosomal abnormalities in mothers in their 20s to early 30s are most definitely lower than the risk in mothers in their 50s.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:16:39

Am now concerned -a maths teacher who doesn't understand statistics....

Jabed - older mothers have a higher risk. Younger mothers have a lower risk. Get it?

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:17:17

Well, don't you know, we could all have two houses and no mortgage if we lived with mum and dad for years so as not to have to waste money on rent (which is more expensive than a most mortgages....)

Os that what you would do rabbitstew? My mother kicked me out at 16. I had to get a roof of my own.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:19:21

Jabed - older mothers have a higher risk. Younger mothers have a lower risk. Get it?

No, you are incorrect, younger mothers carry a significantly higher risk just as older ones do. Its the middle population who carry a significantly lower risk.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:23:07

And don't you realise that you are mainly talking to the middle population on mumsnet, jabed? So when you refer to younger mothers, they think you are referring to them...

CaseyShraeger Mon 08-Oct-12 12:23:16

Statistically younger mothers also carry a similar risk

Do you have any source for that statement? It seems at odds with any reputable study I've ever seen.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:23:37

but quite simply because your school doesn't take SN kids

Have you deliverately not read what I said? We do take SN kids. Is it our fault most parents of such children do not want to pay out/ send them to us/ cant afford it / fix your own reason.

We just do not see many. But we do see a lot of older parents with normal kids

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:24:27

quoting some research from the land of jabed then? am not familiar with that.....

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:27:01

Jabed, two ASD and a few dyslexics doesn't really count as taking SN kids!!!!!

Like I said, most private schools will readily admit that they don't / won't / can't take SN kids - they don't have to & many of them quite simply chose not to.

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:27:29

No, jabed, I would not stay at home. My point is that you did not have an identical situation to the one in existence today, so you are preaching about the past as though it is still the present. I am paying far less in mortgage repayments than I would have to pay in rent. And your view that a 5% rate on your mortgage repayments was high is utterly bizarre - that's a great rate. High is 12 or 13% or more. My parents at least have the grace to admit that they benefited hugely from the ridiculous state of the housing market and the timing of their lives working out so that they always benefited from both the booms and the busts.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:27:41

Normal is a statistical definition. SN by definition are not statistically normal.

Why doesn't dyslexia count????

I thought we were discussing SN that could be attributed to parental age. Dyslexia is not one such condition

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:29:57

What do you mean by younger mothers, jabed? Presumably you don't mean mothers in their 20s and 30s?????? The risk of chromosomal abnormalities in mothers in their 20s to early 30s are most definitely lower than the risk in mothers in their 50s
No I mean mothers in their teens up to around 22 I think it is. .

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:31:25

rabbit - I am not at all sure what population I am talking to on MN. One that doesnt seem at all real to be honest. smile

CaseyShraeger Mon 08-Oct-12 12:32:07

But you still don't have a source for that assertion?

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:33:02

Actually, I think it has been found that parental age does have some influence on the incidence of dyslexia, jabed.

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:33:59

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.

margerykemp Mon 08-Oct-12 12:36:01

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PostBellumBugsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:36:24

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.

seeker Mon 08-Oct-12 12:42:02

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.

CaseyShraeger Mon 08-Oct-12 12:45:03

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)

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:49:30

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 Down’s 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 Down’s Syndrome. This is because a woman’s 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

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:51:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet for repeating a deleted post

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 12:53:18

Still, against popular belief, most children with Down’s 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?

AllPastYears Mon 08-Oct-12 12:53:18

"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 grin. 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!

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 12:56:16

I think you can complain about particular posts and have them deleted, jabed. Just click on report to alert MNHQ.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 12:57:38

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.

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 12:59:59

This thread has turned into the jabed show. It started off as a question about school holidays. hmm

rabbitstew Mon 08-Oct-12 13:00:40

Just report it, jabed... I am sure they will agree with you that that particular post went way outside their chat guidelines.

CaseyShraeger Mon 08-Oct-12 13:00:56

"Still, against popular belief, most children with Down’s 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).

hatsybatsy Mon 08-Oct-12 13:01:12

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.

seeker Mon 08-Oct-12 13:01:15

I have already reported margerykemp's posts.

CaseyShraeger Mon 08-Oct-12 13:06:13

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)

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 13:18:31

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.

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 13:40:51

'you ladies' hmm

Overcooked Mon 08-Oct-12 13:41:41

downsyndrome.about.com/od/diagnosingdownsyndrome/a/Matagechart.htm

Jabed - this might help, definitely more at risk the older the mother - where are you getting your figures from?

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 15:25:09

'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.

jabed Mon 08-Oct-12 15:26:32

Nothing will help overcooked. To be honest I am extremely hurt by what has transpired.

Sparklingbrook Mon 08-Oct-12 15:28:37

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'?

Ginda Mon 08-Oct-12 15:41:33

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

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now