Boarding from the age of 3. Who does this?

[diagonavenue]

Someone sent me this:

"Our boarding school in Villars (Switzerland) welcomes girls and boys from ages 3 to 13, as boarders or day pupils."
https://prefleuri.ch/boarding-school/

What?

Drugs and alcohol at a young age, I imagine.

My DH worked in a private boarding school in Villars for 2-3 years after uni. I don’t think they took kids quite as young as this though. The client base was mega wealthy: oil sheiks from UAE, billionaire Russian oligarchs, European (including British) royalty. Plus very wealthy, elite, business men who wanted their wives to travel / move with them. Swiss private schools are still incredibly popular with this group. DH found it pretty sad, a lot of them were very young. His job was to be a ‘big brother’ - help with homework, take them to activities and trips (skiing is a big thing obvs), help out in the classroom, and anything they needed help with, he was to be on hand.

I didn’t say kids go to care as they are not ‘kind or trouble free’. Most adopters want younger children. It’s very hard to get an adoption place for older children. Yes, there is trouble finding foster carers.

You don’t understand why it’s damaging for children to be raised bystaff who are paid to do so, who work on rotas and move on to other jobs?

If you can’t grasp that, I really don’t know what to say to you. I find that truly incomprehensible

Things happen. I can think of two of my DCs classmates in London private schools who were orphans before the age of 18. One was adopted by her mother's first husband, the father of her half sisters. The second, who was about to enter sixth from, went to live with a friend's parents.

Grandparents may not be able to cope, or perhaps can cope during school holidays but not more. There may not be someone else obvious.

Almost sadder were kids who were essentially abandoned. One small girl was essentially being raised by the bodyguard. The father was often on business (in Africa) the mother was shopping in Paris. It was the bodyguard who picked her up from school and went to sports days until she started boarding at 11. Another's parents were mainly in Moscow with the family in somewhat safer London. The boy was rarely able to go out with DCs friendship group as he had to go home to help look after the younger siblings. Rich kids can be deprived. Dysfunctional families exist across the social spectrum. The rich just have options beyond social services.

I never said it wasn't damaging.

That quote is directly from your post.

@Needmoresleep "Rich kids can be deprived. Dysfunctional families exist across the social spectrum. The rich just have options beyond social services."

Exactly. The rich outsource social services.

I know someone whose son boards at age 7. She’s a single parent with little support and the younger sibling has leukemia. This was her best way to give her son consistency and security. It’s not always black and white.

Well then you do understand my argument.

I know. And that quote is consistent with my subsequent posts.

I don't, no. Neither me, nor the poster I was exchanging messages on here with, ever said this set up wasn't damaging. We simply said there are situations where it would be good and it's a shame more kids don't have access to something like this. You involved yourself in a discussion about something you clearly have little up to date information on. Some of your comments about foster care have been misinformed at best, downright rude at worst.

Strong agree.

So you think something damaging is good and more kids should have access to it.

Right. Makes sense.

You specifically said you didn’t understand my point about staff, then later said you do, yet still continue to attack me.

You’ve also attacked me by seemingly claiming I have said things I haven’t, even when you yourself quote me not saying those things.

Your rudeness right back atcha.

I didn't realise there was ever a time that Forces Families boarded that young! Not saying it was impossible, particularly before the mid-80s (I didn't know the system then) but I really don't think it was a common choice.

Certainly by the late 80s it was not an option, for most at least, as CEA (Continuity of Education Allowance) did not kick in until age 7 or 8, and I'm not aware it was ever any younger than that.

There's no boarding available at that age now, and a poster has lined the census figures above fewer than 10 aged under 7 in the whole country.

I can believe that such a small number is down to exceptional circumstances.

The number begins to rise (to about 100 a year) at 7+ but doesn't really grow until secondary school age. I think it's around that time that military families start boarding. The detriment of moving house at irregular intervals is also known (Forces family DC get pupil premium as they are a significantly disadvantaged group) and in addition some just don't cope well emotionally with no stable peer group. This tends to be more of a factor as DC approach teen years, and may be an influence in wanting to start boarding for secondary

If things are not ideal, there may not be a perfect solution and the least worst option then becomes the best.

Exactly.

@mpsw I had no idea forces families get pupil premium! That's really interesting. I wonder if there are forces families that send their kids boarding so they have access to cheap private education? I'm assuming they still pay a bit?

Where do these census figures come from?

My friend worked briefly as an assistant matron in a boarding school in Shropshire I think they were from about 5 . They were shut into their dormitories at night with just a bucket or potty. She said the children were very distressed. She only stuck it a few weeks. This would have Ben about 1975 or 1976

Yes, CEA is paid only to a ceiling, or to 90% of fees whichever is lower.

State boarding is a very frequent choice for Forces families, who get some priority in admissions, which are based on suitability for boarding (the prospective pupil) and need for boarding (the family circumstances, where those in the Forces and those posted overseas by other government bodies, are top of the list)

CEA is not payable other than for boarding schools, and the pupil must board (and the rest of the family must accompany the serving person on each move). Occasionally, if serving person is posted to close to the school, the pupil can live at home for the duration of that posting, but they must have been a boarder before that). Occasionally it can be paid as a form of "board and lodgings" allowance if a DC stays put to continue at their school, living separately from their family but not in a boarding school - I don't know much about the ins and outs of the scheme in that form, but it's sometimes used when there's an unexpected move at Exactly The Wrong Time (is there any other?) icw GCSE or A level preparation.

Lots of people don't board their DC even if they would qualify for the allowance; there are a lot of personal factors that go in to the choice

What are the illnesses that render people unable to look after their kids during term time, but OK in the holidays. Oh and also provide a ton of money.

@mpsw wow that's super interesting thank you for explaining. I presume they choose state boarding as it's cheaper and they have to subsidize the last 10%?
I can't imagine many forces families could afford even the last 10% of a school like Winchester or Downe House for eg.
Sorry to derail, but if they move overseas and the kids go with them, does the allowance cover international school fees?

Not at 3 though. More like 7 onwards.

One partner may work - perhaps overseas in a boarding school. The other may be in a coma. Who knows. Or a parent may be sectioned and another relative able to look after the child in the holidays/a nanny. All sorts. All sorts to make a world.