To work 12 hours a day for 3 years with 3 Dcs under 6?

[forgottenpassword]

I have 3 Dcs 5 and under. I have a very stressful job which involves long hours, averaging about 12 hours a day but sometimes longer. I am a pretty laid back person so can cope with the stress but am very into my kids so I am sad not to spend more time with them. But if I carry on with my job for next 3 years I am fortunate enough that I will be able to save enough to privately educate my children up to end of primary. But is it worth it?

Agree with scottish why would the op regret it?

I am of the opinion that both parents working shows a good example to children, however I am not arrogant enough to believe that everyone should feel the same, or that everyone's circumstances warrant it.

Anyone who thinks money and totally unecessary private education is more important than time with children baffles me. They aren't little for long.

I got out of the rat race and went self employed so i could have more time with my DD, having realised her childhood was just whizzing by while I was working so much. I still regret bothering even though I realised quite quickly where priorities should be.

Work, be solvent, have a career yes. 12 hours a day though? no.

Ime,only those who don't have to worry about money,say it's only money
work doesn't need to be a rat race at all.employment can be stimulating and fulfilling
we all value or want different things,in op case she wants private ed,so needs to work

"work doesn't need to be a rat race at all"

Easy to say for those with public sector jobs, scottishmummy . Try the real world and open your eyes...

I won't be reprimanded by a housewife who fannys about all day

I agree with scottishmummy that asking children to make this kind of decision is beyond ridiculous.

Parents make important decisions because they are adults and can see the biggerr, long term picture.

I personally wouldn't do it for the sole purpose of funding private primary education.

I give my children age appropriate choices. I'm the capable adult I think the big stuff,not them

Definitely no - I was privately educated from age 4-16 but in order to do this my parents worked 6 days a week and we never had time as a family. As a result of this I work 2.5 days a week, my children go to the local state primary but we I'm there for the school run, homework, bedtimes and we always have a family holiday in the Summer. Time with your children far outweighs a private education IMHO and I speak from experience.

Lubey I genuinely think it is good that you had that option and took it because it worked well for you. However there are not many professions/jobs that give that option.

Everyone on this board has different family set ups and different priorities and I feel it is unfair to slate anyone's choice given the diverse membership. All we (as a collective) can do is offer our differing opinions and insights into what works for us.

There is no single right answer to this. As adults, though, we need to weigh up what would create the greatest 'sum of happiness' for the whole family.

So if, for example, a great part of your personal happiness and self-worth is linked to your job / career, then the loss of that would not compensate for the marginal benefit that the children might receive through you being at home more.

Or if you need to work 12 hours a day in order to provide a roof, food, warmth and clothing, then again the benefit of that far outweighs any disbenefit to the children of you being out of the home.

['You' by the way, is purposely gender-neutral - it could equally apply to male or female parents]

On the other hand, the marginal benefit to an already financially-secure family of being able to provide private schooling for several years vs spending more time with the children when very young is a much more finely balanced 'sum of happiness' equation, in which the balance is tipped by other factors such as current main caregiver, quality of alternative schools etc.

Every family will have a different 'sum of happiness' equation.

Just as an idea, though - you mention moving to a different, perhaps 11+, area once the children are secondary school age, in order to get round the 'only able to afford private for primary' issue. Could you not plan to make a move much earlier, to an area with great state primaries and good secondaries (whether selective or not) and therefore take yourself out of the binary 'work excessive hours / need to pay for schooling' vs 'work fewer hours but be limited to less good state options' dilemma?

There's a sensible response, teacher. Nicely put.

You are assuming that if you move to a grammar school area, that your children will pass the 11+ rather than ending up at the secondary modern.

I do not think your project is worthwhile if it is to pay for private education, however it most certainly would be worthwhile if it means you are in a position to earn a good salary and work more flexibly and fewer hours once your children are older.

People overstate the importance of parents being there all day during the early years, and understate the importance of being around more when they're at secondary age. Anyone can change a nappy or wipe a snotty nose or sing nursery rhymes. Once they get to 10 or 12 or so they very specifically need you to be available - not to supervise but to be able to respond as and when.

I did this OP and I would do it again. However the one thing that I didn't appreciate at the time was that my health and DH's was good and stayed good despite massive pressures. If you feel it is starting to affect your health then reconsider.

'People overstate the importance of parents being there all day during the early years...Anyone can change a nappy or wipe a snotty nose or sing nursery rhymes.'

The first few years of a child's life are the most important in terms of forming secure attachments, emotional stability and so on. The OP has a lovely nanny who she is happy with to be with her children in those vital years.
Young children don't just need someone to change their nappy and wipe their noses.

Whoever upthread said working 12 hours is different to being out of the house twelve hours - 12 hours plus commute is not enough sleep for them under five for you to do bedtime too. Get up early, see them in the mornings, and get the nanny to do bedtime.

DH does similar hours but puts in alot of quality time over the weekends and although he does miss not having more time (esp for plays etc which he often has to miss) he has a g

Damn bloody phone the buttons are too close together, posted too early!

DH has a good relationship with our DCs and provides very valuable input for them.

If putting the hours in when children are small means that you're able, when they're a bit older, to go to school plays and the like then it could well be worth it.

I totally understand that the early years are important for forming attachments, Natural. But now my child and his friends are at secondary age I see the parents who were all :( about babies of working mothers thinking it's OK for their 12yo to be home alone for hours on end after school. It's through necessity maybe, but if they'd been less head-tilty about poor, poor babies in nurseries years ago, they would have had more options now. That's what I mean about overstating.

But again, I don't think it's worth it just to pay for private education.

I don't think there is one right or wrong answer because it is such a personal decision and depends on so many things. Those who think on the basis of a few words in your OP they can give a definite answer yes or no, just surround arrogant.

Is there flexibility in how you work those hours? Can you work from home. I have played around with my working hours since I became a parent and changed it to suit the circumstances as my dcs grow (I have 2 under 4). At the moment I spend 2 hours with them in the morning and an hour in the evening. I work with people who are on the East and West Coast of the US so leave at 6.30pm, home at 7pm and can do conference call at 8.30pm if needed. I know this is very flexible but would you be able to do anything like that at all?

Also if you are working long hours then it's important to make sure that your weekends are really for the kids. In my case, between our nanny, cleaner, ironing lady, gardener and handyman all the chores related to the house are taken care of so our entire weekends are focused on the dcs.

I understand what you meant Jenai - the main reason I have such a good relationship with my mother is that she was always, always there for us after school and made sure that she talked to us about anything/everything we needed to talk about.

I'd rather spend more time with my dc's and move to a better catchment area.

It doesn't matter which one of you is there more but one of you needs to be. Imagine growing up hardly knowing your parents? That would have bothered me as a child much more than whether i could go to a posh school or not.

OP would you work for 12 hours a day or would you be out of the house for 12 hours a day (or do you WAH or have a tiny commute?)
If you can move to somewhere with great secondaries, why not move somewhere with great primaries and secondaries?

I think in this case you should do what works for you as a family. If you earn the most, which I assume you do, can your DH cut back a bit without wrecking the financial plan?

I am out of the house for about 13 hours a day. About an hour of that is commute altogether so commute not too bad. I am the bigger earner but Dh runs a business so hard for him to devote less time to it than he does. Perhaps we should just think about moving

Moving might be an option. Does your company have offices in UK you can transfer to, even if you cut hours? Would your husbands business projection change if you moved? playing devils advocate

Decisions like these are so difficult to make!