To think boarding schools are an expensive version of neglect?

[WriterofDreams]

I don't get boarding schools at all. Especially for young children. I will never forget watching a documentary about 7 year olds being sent to boarding school and the fear and upset the poor girls went through being separated from their families. For what? The mums seemed to think the poor children's suffering was necessary in service of their futures. Surely it's more important for them to grow up in their families and enjoy their siblings? I don't have a huge amount of personal experience of boarding schools so I may be missing something important. I do know however know two adults who were sent to boarding school as young children and consider themselves seriously damaged by it.

Surely it's better for a young child to be raised by people who genuinely love them than by a house mother who may be kind and loving but who essentially is just doing a job? AIBU to see boarding school as a form of high class care system for the wealthy?

I'm inclined to agree with you LeQueen. Perhaps the children of parents who see boarding school as a good thing wouldn't actually get much out of being at home as their parents aren't very attached to them. The fact that you had a very difficult relationship with your parents explains a lot scary - in that case I can see why you don't have qualms about sending children away as you see it as a positive thing. For those of us who have had a close relationship with parents (I'm extremely close to my dad) the thought of losing out on that really is hard to imagine and that's why boarding school seems like such a bad thing.

Linerunner: Report your Sil.

CEA pays for continuity not necessarily quality so that is why CEA pays a maximum of 90%.
All of you who move house to get into a better school catchment area with house prices to match are doing the same as military personnel topping up fees. We are given a choice, as are you. Judging from the comments on this thread you would all be up in arms if the MOD paid more CEA...

The whole premise that CEA is based on is mobility, that's why we haven't claimed because we haven't been mobile before, and there is a day school option here. We will claim for state sixth form boarding.

Do you also feel aggrieved at the proportion of your TV licence that pays the entire rent and repair for Mark Mardell's rental in Brussels, and the fees for his kids at an international school?

Swallowed. Who do you mean by "we"? Big companies generally pay the full schools fees, boarding or local international school. Often there is not much difference between the two. It is called part of their employment package. It is no different for people in the Services.

Swallowed: In the Forces the wives are part of the package we are "expected" to do a number of organisational duties which helps my DH do his job. I do not follow him around like some puppy dog!

Many of the businessmen you mention have school fees paid - by his employers not by you - if the family takes up an overseas posting. If the fees are not directly included, then his salary will be higher to compensate this.

His employer knows that however costly this is, it is cheaper to the employer than a failed assignment. And assignments very frequently fail when the family is split up or unhappy about something, especially something like their children's education.

The people who get this deal as part of their salary get it because to their employer, which might be the government, they are worth it.

'is it ok to pay 17k plus per child from state money so that a woman can choose not to work and not to raise her children?'

Just because you are mobile doesn't mean that you don't work or pay tax. My db claims CEA for his kids. His wife is a fulltime staff nurse - last time I looked, she paid tax.

It's not £17000, and it's not for every child - it's for a maximum of approx £16500, and not every Forces family uses it. When ds goes it will be £10k pa for fees, of which we pay 10%, so £3k per term.

I disagree that they are not raising their children.

As to my relationship with my parents, that is irrelevant to my views on boarding as I didn't board until 16. My Dad was an alcoholic, an adulterer and an abuser, because of the way he was parented by his single mother in the 40s and 50s. My relationship with my ds is very different to my relationship with my Dad, it's close and loving, which is why he doesn't mind going to college, because the range of A levels is better, and he'll get more freedom than he does at home.

YANBU on the basis that you are just ignorant - that isn't good or bad it just is :)

If a couple split up, the children stayed with the dad and the mum went to live in Spain with her new husband, coming back to see the kids every second weekend and on holidays, would she be entitled to say to her ex-H "I raised the kids as much as you did" In my view, no way. Raising kids isn't about the weekends and holidays, it's about being there for them every day, doing the boring stuff as well as the fun stuff. To say people who send their kids to BS are raising their children is just wrong - the BS is raising the children and the parents are at best contributing. The children spend the majority of their time with people who are not their parents so obviously the majority of their influences will come from people other than their parents, it's just logic.

LeQ it isn't that a woman chooses her service husband over her children. For service children (who are only a minor(?) part of the boarding population) they are quite likely to move

a) at short notice and therefore not be able to apply with everyone else to what would be the school of choice

b) to whereever the service person is sent and have to make the best job of whatever school is available and what the logistics of the family allow (often the service person is 'unreliable' for childcare arrangements due to work commitments)

c)not just between schools but between school systems eg Scottish/English as well as other nations with international postings.

d) during exam cycles. Of course what might be a good time for a move for one child wouldn't necessarily be so for a sibling.

LeQ, the deal for forces families is that they get the CEA money because the family home moves, so the wife has to go with the husband and cannot stay near the children.

On the other hand the wife could stay with the children in one location and DH commute when and if he could. For us, post children if I had stayed in one place with the children in an area with decent schools for them, I would have lived with DH for 3 years. We have teenage kids and have been married since before we had them.

I have no idea if you are in a relationship but imagine if you will, being separated from your partner for 80% of your marriage while you stayed with your kids. 80% of the last however many years. Could you do it? With a strong marriage still? Having lived apart for some years i don't think I could.

So, we knew all this when he joined/we married right? No. The cuts in defence in the intervening years have meant the services are more stretched and life has become more unpredictable and liable, for us, to many more moves that we had invisaged before children.

So he could leave. As with many walks of life he has progressed th career ladder and recieved an increased income in return. Hurrah! But like many othrs we have grown into our income. This means it would be difficult to change our family's lifestyle. Although not expensive by any means, in fact due to it's location it's way under what 'Phil and Kirsty' get to spend, my daughter adores our house, she would be distraught for us to sell it. we can't afford it without his salary.

So move to civvy street doing what he does. There is no comparative job there, his salary would plummet.

My children are HAPPY to board and were involved in the choice of school. They are having a good education and know it and enjoy it. I have a warm, close and loving relationship with my children (and my parents FWIW).

Many on this thread are regulars and KNOW just how important the education of their children is to mums. For SOME service families boarding is the best solution to a tricky problem.Teenagers and the services is HARD whatever the answer. You may not be able to imagine doing it but please allow that for SOME families it is the best choice available and not slag 'em off for the difficult choice they've had to make!!

i suspect I've taken soooo long to write all that that I'll be way behind the thread!

Freshmint, Linerunner please let the authorities know if peole are claiming CEA fraudulently. I hate it with a passion, and would dob someone in in an instant if I was aware.

OP - you said "The fact that you had a very difficult relationship with your parents explains a lot scary - in that case I can see why you don't have qualms about sending children away as you see it as a positive thing. For those of us who have had a close relationship with parents (I'm extremely close to my dad) the thought of losing out on that really is hard to imagine and that's why boarding school seems like such a bad thing."

I had (and continue to have) a close relationship with my mother BUT that did not preclude spending term-times away at boarding school. We didn't have to be together 24/7 to maintain that relationship. In fact, during the teenage years, many parent-child relationships are enhanced if there is a bit of space. I'm sure you can't understand this, but I'm living proof. I'm not emotionally stunted, damaged or anything else.

Cointreau: Scary hasn't sent her child away. He might board (6th form only) as they are have a posting order to make an international move at the end of his year 12. Now: read your post again - do you think what you've said is fair, kind or helpful?

CointreauVersial (love the name by the way!) the thread has moved on to talking about just children under 10, as I have accepted in previous posts that for teenagers boarding can be a positive thing.

Townmouse, the basic jist of your post is that you have a certain lifestyle that you're not willing to give up therefore the children need to board. Are you really saying that your daughter loves a house so much that this is justification for not being with them? Also, I'm confused, if you move around so much where is the house that you own?

I've heard all the arguments but there's no doubt about it SwallowedAFly is right everytime on the issue that you can't abandon your children and expect the state to pay just because you are in love.

I've heard all the arguments but there's no doubt about it SwallowedAFly is right everytime on the issue that you can't abandon your children and expect the state to pay just because you are in love

I agree.

WoD, that's funny I have been reading the thread as most agree that boarding for pre-teens is difficult (with the exception of the choristers) and that I was discussing teen boarders. Will climb back into box....

We have bought a house (to be in the market) at one of our postings but it has been rented out. (sorry don't want to give too many details and out myself)

a certain lifestyle that you're not willing to give up therefore the children need to board well I guess so, in that they would have to leave their current school at which they are happy and flourishing, and (we already have crap cars) we would have to move into a shoebox and DH would have to take a 60%(?) salary cut (although I might be able to have a career worth more ££ than scrabbling around for admin jobs). Could you invisage a 50% income cut in your household (and inflict yet another move on the DC, during exams and across a school system) and another move when the set up you have works well for all the family?

I genuinely dont mean to be patronising but our DC are not 'sent' to BS but are 'allowed' to go. They enjoy it. They love us. We are a warm and close family. Honest. It may seem unbelievable but it IS true.

you can't abandon your children and expect the state to pay just because you are in love

PLease read my thread from 16:54:27, the going with your husband is a result of securing a good education for DC and avoiding the upheavals of service life, not a choice of him or them, well not for us anyway.

Oh WoD, I personally know children who were at Highfield (in the documentary). Without outing them by decribing their circumstances they had an upheaval to their family and needed to go away to school. They were not teenagers. They enjoyed school. They loved being home and loved their family. Last tiem I saw them they were coming along nicely like any normal kids.

But that doesn't make good TV.

BTW, so could you all live apart from DH/DP for 80% of your relationships?

"I've heard all the arguments but there's no doubt about it SwallowedAFly is right everytime on the issue that you can't abandon your children and expect the state to pay just because you are in love"

This ridiculous and unintelligent representation of what has been said shows that either you have "heard" but haven't listened or you are intellectually unable to understand what people who are in the situation are saying.