Do you think it’s unfair to send one child to a private school or an expensive extracurricular activity while not offering the same to the other?

Generally yes. Though that said the school should suit the child and I think getting a scholarship to a good school is acceptable even if siblings don’t. Hobbies should definitely be able to spend same amount in each child, though depending what hobbies they have there may be a difference by the simple nature of the activity (ie: we have one in motor cross and one in dance, motor cross is more expensive.)

I sent one of mine private and not the others. Originally we moved them and left the older sibling in the state school because they were happy and thriving. Both went to state secondary and we moved the younger back to private when we realised the (absolutely brilliant) state secondary wasn’t working for them. It transpired younger had ASD and ADHD and we were close to total school refusal and off the scale anxiety in the state school. The private school meant their mental health improved and they were happy and could learn due to the pastoral care. Eldest was offered private 6th form but declined to stay at state school.

Both are now at RG unis but state school child has better GCSE and A level results. State school child has done every activity and extracurricular they like and we made a vow to always say yes.

We have one child in private secondary. They are autistic and weren’t coping at all in state secondary. Mainstream private school has literally saved their life. Their sibling goes to state secondary like any other kids. The state school child appreciates this his sibling needed private school to cope, whereas they are much more fortunate to be able to cope in a rowdy, chaotic state school.

The way I see it, you get 10 years longer with your parents. Money can't buy you that.

I think it depends. Ideally things should be fairly equal in terms of finances but DC should go to the best school etc for their individual needs (where this is possible financially). Sometimes that might be state and sometimes private. Also, if one DC has an expensive hobby and the other enjoys less expensive hobbies but both get to do all the hobbies they want to do then I think that's OK. Things don't HAVE to be exactly equal financially. My brother had a scholarship to private school and I didn't (both went) but he didn't ask for the savings his scholarship had given my parents for example.

If there's a big age gap and the first DC happily goes to state and by the time the second one is old enough, there's the money for private then I'd do that but discuss with the eldest the reasons for the difference in education and how you would allocate some of the extra money for their future (uni or house etc) so that they would also benefit from the financial upturn.

You don't need to spend the same amount of money on your children or in order to be 'fair' but what you have described suggests that the parents 'used' all the money up on one kid and there was nothing left for the other. This is clearly unfair.

I think all kids should be considered equally and then allowed what can be afforded within reason to meet their needs. I am the eldest of 6, I did alot of dance as a child/young adult and it was expensive. My sister was into art and photography, younger sister also did alot of dance but also piano. Brother was v computer literate even back in the day and was afforded IT stuff that helped him progress with things related to that, including gaming but also did piano. Another brother was capable but struggling with school and transferred to private for 6th form(with some bursary) youngest at one point was at boarding school (again with some bursary) and heavily into a particular sport (related to school hence to that school) the three youngest had many a ski holiday and trips with school - the older ones didn't. The younger ones had more financial support at Uni. But the older ones got more state support. We all came out with hobbies and and an education.

Opportunity can vary and support can vary and it doesn't really need to be even handed financially, although opportunity should be (it isn't always provided by ££)

Yes, of course, under normal circumstances, however if one DC was gifted academically and go karting was a school activity, then I would send them.
I would do everything in my power to support the other one by other means.

If it's any consolation, this is exactly what happened with me and my sibling. 8 year age gap, family in better financial situation by the time sibling was coming up to secondary. I did really well at a mixed state school and got into a good uni, sibling was starting to struggle with focus at state primary and didn't get into any of the good state comps nearby, so our parents decided to put them into private. They went on to achieve excellent grades at GCSE and A Level, as well as a first at university.

I've not been jealous or upset at any point as I think our parents' reasoning made sense, and I've not lost out on anything. Sibling needed the extra boost at school age, I didn't. Also, as you are saying you'll do, our parents have tried to "make up for it" by covering some of my milestone expenses as a young adult even though I never expected them to "balance the spend out" because I didn't feel like anything was unfair. But it made them feel better to be what they thought of as fair to both children.

Edited to add that my sibling also got financial support from our parents towards a house purchase but they felt it evened out because sibling moved away from the South East so had a much, much cheaper first time purchase. As far as I'm aware, sibling doesn't resent parents for getting a "smaller share" of deposit contributions, they are quite level headed (probably thanks to the good private school they went to?!) and appreciate that any contribution was given at all.

Similarly, my DH's parents have recently insisted on giving DH a lump sum. They contributed to our first property purchase about 8 years ago as well as DH's sister's first purchase recently. But at the time we bought vs when DH's sister bought, they were more financially stable, so it seems they felt bad about how "little" they contributed to DH. DH argued that they didn't need to (I agree with him) because any help was appreciated back then and we are l ourselves are more financially stable because of where our careers are now and the fact that we are in our 30s, but they still insisted for "fairness."

@KpopDemon I was your eldest DD (sort of - my state school was rubbish but I was academic so still got all A's and A*'s). My brother was being horrendously bullied in state and my parents could only afford 1 of us to go, I had absolutely no issue with the money being spent on him, I didn't need it, he did - end of story.

Although my parents didn't take that as his 'share' - we both, quite rightly, got equal support with driving lessons, uni costs etc. Its not your DS's fault that there isn't a decent boys school nearby, and your DD didn't make her excellent school happen - unless it's a grammer and she worked exceptionally hard to get in? So should he be 'penalised' for money spent by you to give him an education equal to his sisters?

Also, education doesn't always predict future outcomes, at least 80% is intrinsic - a bright and motivated child will do well anywhere they are happy. My brother, equally bright but far less motivated got much worse grades at private than I got at a failing state, and earns much less now than me. This is a conversation for your DS - where does he see himself at 20, 30 etc, and what support to get there.

My friend has two DDs. The eldest got into grammar school, the youngest didn't. The local state comp doesn't have a good reputation. So it's not possible to treat them equally. The eldest goes to the excellent grammar school and the youngest goes to either the mediocre comprehensive or the expensive private school.

What is the fair answer here?

It could be a scenario like this…..

Depends on the child.

If you have one child that is flourishing in a state school and another that is
struggling either because they can’t keep
up or are getting bored because they’re too bright, I don’t see the problem
with sending the second child to a private school if you can afford it (speaking as someone who can’t!) in order to ensure they reach their potential.

Agree with this 100%. Equity over equality.
My parents had a similar situation, me and my DB were born while my dad was still an apprentice, then 10 years later they had our DSIS and their finances were ridiculously better. Has she been given more in life? Absolutely. But we don't begrudge her that or feel resentful. It's life 🤷🏻‍♀️

I think this very much depends on the circumstances and reasons behind it and its too much of a loaded question without examining finer detail.

If a child was struggling with state school system, refusing or failing for whatever reason and there was the opportunity to send one to private school which was a setting that was suitable for them to ensure they didn't fail/drop out completely then yes I would do it in a heartbeat.

But I would also ensure the other child was supported and do my best to equal it out at a later stage.

What's fair and equal isn't always the same thing and is dependent on need.

I've had friends send 1 to private school because of ND and the other remaining in state school and actually other then a slight annoyance in the amount of holiday its worked out the best for both children.

Circumstances change so you might assume you'll have enough cash, but by the time they hit school age it's not possible. And I wouldn't necessarily want to move the older one.

Also kids are different and I knew a family where the eldest wouldn't have coped in a normal state school, youngest was fine. So the eldest went private. Lots of people send their children to different schools because that's the right school for that child.

My aunt was given these opportunities as a child and my dad was told they couldn’t afford to do the same for him, not even one single extra curricular club. He found it hurtful and resents not only his parents, but his sister for it.

She never did anything with those opportunities. He has a successful career and always stood on his own two feet, whilst she can’t even hold down entry level jobs and still relies on them to fund her life.

She got everything as a child and all the attention as an adult. Now they are older, they look to him to look after them and her! I couldn’t do that to my kids, it doesnt just affect their childhood, but it would likely stay with them for life.

@lolstevelol What do you think?

If it's because of money, then yes.
I did know of a case where only one went because that school was the perfect match for one child (smaller classes and extra help), but the science opportunities offered at the local state school were better for child 2. Child 2 could have gone to the private, but didn't want to, and thrived in the state, with the provisions which were better suited to his interests and talents.

I will never understand people quibbling about entitlements to someone else’s time, attention, fairness and love. you should be grateful your parents simply gave you life. Anything else is just a bonus.

This.

One of my DC is at a private school (that unofficially caters to SEN) because they weren't coping at state.

My other dc wouldn't like it there and is happy at their state school.

If they weren't I'm not sure what we'd do. We couldn't afford to send both.

I will never understand people quibbling about entitlements to someone else's money

Not inherently. My brother went to a private school, I went to a state school - I didn't want to go to a private school in a million years. He was on a scholarship anyway, which I would never have won (I did sit the exam to shut my dad up and was offered an assisted place which we couldn't afford much to my relief) but it still sucked up scarce finances for uniforms etc. Activity wise none of us got to do any so there was no imbalance there. It really depends on the set up, how the children feel, if something is at the expense of someone else.

Controversially I think yes.
There are obviously cases where its brutally wrong and one child is heavily favoured but in most cases life is much more messy and nuanced.

For myself... I can see the very clear wealth gap between myself and youngest sibling who is 8 yrs younger.
If they were left a larger inheritance by my parents and it was discussed ahead of time i'm not sure I'd be particularly salty...I'd want to see them fed and housed.

And Fwiw you can break your back go be fair and still be 'wrong'.

We all went to private schools to "be fair". It was financially VERY hard for my mother. The older kids inc myself had 50-90% scholarships and were girls.... youngest had zero scholarship and was a boy (costs more vs girls)
His education actually cost about 8x what mine cost YET youngest sibling has bitched for over a decade that they didnt have the same opportunities as I went to a better school (they were sat for 8 schools and failed the exams for all but 1 so...)

My mother herself will even admit although she aimed for parity the youngest got more resources (time, attention and money). All siblings bar youngest would say we were treated fairly - youngest firmly believes i am "the favorite" and they were hard done to 🤷🏻‍♀️
Bizarrely I still wouldnt begrudge him a larger share but... My poor mother 😅

Because sometimes offering your children the same advantages in life is choosing different things for them.

the worse thing you can do for you children is treat them as a homogeneous lump rather than individual with individual needs.

education/extra curricular what works for one won’t work for the other

if the decision is made just because it’s the eldest or favouritism that is wrong.

looking at the needs of an individual and deciding what is the best for them