To think boarding schools are an expensive version of neglect? MARK 2

[colditz]

LeQueen "Can someone please explain to me why living apart from your DH damages your marriage...but living apart from your children doesn't damage your relationship with them in anyway?

Please ...I genuinely don't understand."

Because your children can't have an affair, LeQueen

I agree LeQueen. My DS is still only a tiny baby so I know it's a bit different to a strapping teenager, but it actually causes me real and constant discomfort being away from him. That's why I can't imagine actually choosing to be away from him 4 days a week. For people who don't have that level of attachment I'm sure it seems fine. Perhaps my attachment is too strong, and theirs is right, who knows but we each find it hard to see the others' point of view and it comes down to fundamental emotions so we're never going to see eye to eye. I do still think it's worth talking about though.

I think my mother was rather attached to us and cried buckets when oldest left. But I suppose she had to learn to deal with it too. But our local secondary school really wasn't good enough.

When we were little she did loads with us like lots of mothers.

Given than today the Government is ordering yet more of our Service personnel into harm's way, I think it is worth remembering that the stresses on Forces families are unique, and I hope that the views of posters trying to explain them will be respected.

It was pointed out (at length) on the previous thread that CEA is not paid to Forces wives (or husbands or CPs), but to the serving person (who might be single) who qualifies solely from his/her current mobility, and is to provide options for continuity of education, as continual disruption is very bad for children both socially and educationally.

Families, whether Forces or not, must weigh up all sorts of factors in making these personal and individual decisions. Blanket judgements (such as those of neglect in the previous thread) are not kind, helpful or informative.

I'm not sure I like this insinuation that people who can contemplate their children boarding have less of a bond with them.

"2) The issue of government subsidies was raised. It transpired that some wives of forces personnel get a subsidy to send their children to boarding school. So effectively those wives don't work, don't look after their children, and get their childcare heavily subsidised by the state. This is (rightly) seen as very unfair, given that many lone parents will soon be losing any benefits the govt has thus far given them."

How do you know the wives "don't work"? Lots of military wives work, even if they move around with their husbands/spouses. CEA is only granted if the family is moving with the various postings and if the move would disrupt the children's education. The wife's employment status is not a factor in deciding who gets Boarding School Allowance.

"Given than today the Government is ordering yet more of our Service personnel into harm's way, I think it is worth remembering that the stresses on Forces families are unique, and I hope that the views of posters trying to explain them will be respected. "

My husband has just had his two weeks' leave, due to start tonight, cancelled. We haven't seen him for a month.

"but if you lived with your children 80% of the time, and only saw your DH 20% of the time - couldn't you experience all those quality time moments with your DH instead?"

That's what we do - my husband only comes home for three days every two to three weeks. It is bloody hard. We get zero "quality time" (how I hate that phrase!) as a couple because his focus is on the children when he is at home.

I'm not sure if there's a better way to put it silverfrog. I just couldn't be away from my DS and I know my mum had a very hard time being away from us on the very few occasions that she had to spend a couple of nights away. Perhaps it's not less of a bond, more less attached? I don't think my mum could have coped with us being away for four nights a week, but clearly parents who send their children to boarding school do cope so what's the difference between my mum and those parents?

That was all discussed already jcscot and there were real-life examples of wives not working and claiming the CEA. The argument was that they were required to be with their husband to carry out some sort of duties. What those duties were wasn't specified.

WriterofDreams - I think the fact that your child is still a tiny baby is key here. Almost everyone gains independence, both practical and emotional, from their parents at some point - the speed and timing of this will depend on individual circumstances and the child's own development.

When your children are tiny you can't imagine being without them but they grow up and you do.

What I think is sad is when the speed/timing of this independence is forced by external events to be either faster/earlier or slower/later than the child's own nature would suggest.

This applies equally to parents packing children off to boarding school and helicopter parents who can't let go. Both can be damaging.

I jsut don't find it very helpful to categorise it as such. (not meant ot sound as uppity as it does)

I could not contemplate being away from my 2 currently. they are 6 and 4. I had a night away in December (talking about leaving after lunch one day, back mid mornign the next), and a short weekend away (fri lunch to Sunday lunch) last summer. ans that's it. I don't enjoy being away from them (although god knows I could do witht he break at times).

apart form that, the only time I have been away form dd1 was when I was in hospital having dd2.

but, having been to boarding school (as a teen), and having always done a long school day (at prep school I was at school until 6, then went straight to ballet fo ra few hours), I am not sure I could deny my children the chance to experience some of the things that I expereinced while there.

I do not work. I will probably never work full time, due to dd1's SN. so we will always have massive amounts of school holiday time together, and hoidays as a family.

I do not think I could selfishly hold my dd2 back, if she wants to go. whatever happens, she is likely to be in a private school, even if she does not board.

and, as happened with me before I eventually started boarding, I shoudl think that once she gets into the choir, orchestra, school play, house play, sports teams, sports clubs, art clubs etc etc etc - she won't be coming home straight after conventional lessons anyway. the only difference once I started boarding was that I slept at school, not at home.

when I was a day pupil there, I woudl arrive at 7.45am (due to mum needing to get back for work), and be picked up at 9.30pm. we had a half hour journey back home. I got home and went ot sleep. boarding was way more convenient for all of us, tbh. mum didnt have to turn out late at night to pick me up, and I got to hang around with my friends more (and what teen doesn't want to do that?)

and then I was home at the weekends, and spent time with my family then. and all thourgh the holidays.

I don't think turnign it all into a "well i must be more closely attached ot my children" kind of judgement is being fair. it all depends on the situation (schools wise) in any given area, and the interests and hobbies of the children involved.

I agree MrsWobble. I don't think it's good to suffocate children, and I definitely never felt suffocated by my mother. I do however think that nowadays there is far far too much emphasis on "independence" as if needing other people is a huge failing. It saddens me to see that this even extended to babies who are left to cry in order to teach themselves to "self-settle." Why have a child if looking after them is too much trouble for you? The fact is, a child needs their parents, and forcing them to be "independent" before they're ready is going to damage them. There is a wealth of psychological research to show this. There really is no point in breastfeeding your child, feeding them all the best organic food as a toddler, bringing them to all the best classes etc if you're just going to push them out of the nest to fend for themselves when they really need you.

"I'd be curious to know what these duties are, too? What are they exactly, which means you can't take care of your children at the same time?"

I can only speak from my experience before we had children as we have lived apart since ours were born.

In our last posting I was expected to host dinner parties, go to lunches for visiting dignitaries, turn up to the touchline on a wet Wednesday afternoon, help out with various charities (I basically worked part-time for free), be available for parades, Chapel Sundays and formal lunches/dinners.

None of which would have stopped me from looking after my children had I had any at the time. The point of CEA is not to provide childcare but to provide a stable education due to the extreme mobility of Forces life (we had eight house moves in six and a half years and that's pretty typical of my husband's Corps).

Writer of Dreams: whether the trailing husband/wife/CP works or not is not a factor in this allowance and a complete red herring.

I posted the number for the confidential hotline to report fraud on the last thread, as posters appeared to be describing abuses of the system (ie non-mobility). I hope those aware of such circumstances have picked up the phone.

Silverfrog, again we're talking about young children, not teens. You clearly are attached to your little ones as you couldn't see yourself sending them away at this age.

WriterofDreams you don't get it it is NOT the wife who claims CEA, even if your husband is away he HAS to claim it and it goes into HIS pay. The issue of whether a wife works has nothing to do with the stability of a childs education. I don't work, I have 2 little ones at home, I chose NOT to work from when my eldest was born so I could 100% give them the love and care that they need, I DO all the taxi service and activities they want (even if they only last 5 mins before they move onto the next). However my eldest 2 wanted to go, they discussed it with us. They are sensible enough to see that moving every 20ish months is not helping them get an education, they repeat subjects,miss out subjects and in some cases end up being out of school for several weeks whilst they get into a new school. I HATE it that they are away but I have to respect that they feel it is what they need, if they didn't like it they could come home now. We tried living apart as a family but we all suffered, by the time my husband got back once a month all I wanted to do was throw the kids at him, I'm not cut out to be a single mum.

Lequeen these duties are things like entertaining, running charity SAFA events etc, although nowadays if you don't want to do them the army recognises you aren't in it as a wife :)

yes, sorry, writer - conflating with the poster who said if their 13 year old was eager to go boarding they would feel they had failed them.

tbh, a year ago (dd1 was 5), we were facing the possibility of residential school for dd1. it is still a factor of course, but likely to be when she is older now, thank god.

woudl I have hated every second? yes. completely and utterly.

woudl I have sent her? yes, if it was in her best interests (by which I mean the education she woudl have recieved, enabling her ot live a fulfilling life, not whether she would be ok without me in her life constantly).

I am thankful every single day that I didn't have to send her away so young. but there are plenty of others who do (have to).

just because a child is sent to boarding school young does not mean that the parent doesn't think of them, or embraces their now child free life with abandon.

life is more complicated than that.

Silverfrog I have worked in a residential school for children with SN so I'm aware that's a totally different situation. I've seen the heartbreak of parents forced to put their children into residential care because that is genuinely what is best for them and it's not a decision taken lightly, I know that.

Just to add to what jscot and Mummy have been saying - the wives cannot claim CEA, it is the serving partner who does that. CEA is not contingent upon the trailing spouse working, but upon the trailing spouse being just that - mobile.

That's fair enough scary. So the serving partner claims CEA and the trailing partner doesn't work. Is that situation fair?

To clarify, I don't think it matters who claims it, the issue is that some families claim it when one parent isn't working and could look after the children.