Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that sending one child state school and one child to private school is child abuse

239 replies

ReallyTired · 27/02/2014 12:19

Obviously if there is substantial special needs and there is no choice to send a child to a state school then that is completely different. Private schools for children who require a statement are difficult to find and to persaude the LEA to fund.

A neighbour of mine has chosen sent her eldest son to an expensive private very selective secondary school. The child has a partial scolarship and bursery, but they still have to find a couple of thousand pounds a year. It is a huge financial struggle. They cannot afford to send the youngest to private school. They have made the decision to send the youngest to state school as he is less intelligent. They have decided that the youngest child is less intelligent at the age of seven.

I feel that giving a child a private school education because he is deemed to be more intelligent than his sibbling is favourism. It must really hit the self esteem of the state educated child that they were not considered worth investing in. There are plenty of mixed ablity private schools with good results in my area. As the children get older they will notice the difference in resources and life experiences the other child has.

OP posts:
RufusTheReindeer · 27/02/2014 14:30

I have a friend whose eldest was supposed to go to private but refused as she wanted to join her friends at the local comp

Her eldest son has been taken out of state junior school and put into private school, her 2nd daughter is in the private schools nursery and I imagine her 2nd son will go when old enough

My 12 year old daughter was cheesed off with me for not "making" her do ballet at 5, goodness knows what arguments my friend will have with her hormonal teen

You just need to do what you feel is best, chances are it's going to bite you on the bum whatever you decide

tryingreallytrying · 27/02/2014 14:37

Ha ha ha. V amusing thread.

OpalQuartz · 27/02/2014 14:38

I agree with Sillylass79 that

Scholarship - fine
Specific needs - fine
Bullying - fine

Boys more important - not fine
First born more important - not fine
I've decided at 7 you're not that bright and it would be a waste of money - pretty dire

Nocomet · 27/02/2014 14:41

I don't know if DF's younger DD resents her parents sending her older sister to private school

I do know that it would have been incredibly difficult not to.

Older DD got offers of scholarships from two different private schools, without a single tutor session. Had she lived 10 miles further south she'd have walked the 11+ equally easily and her DSIS wouldn't have quite got in.

Life isn't fair, all siblings arent created equal and sometimes parents can only make the best of a difficult situation.

Nocomet · 27/02/2014 14:49

I should add that because they don't live in the grammar school area the younger DD does get to go to a very very good faith secondary, so in the grand scheme of the English education lottery she comes off ok.

She also no longer spends everyday being X's sister.

(X isn't just more accademic, she's better at sport and music and very pretty. I wouldn't want to be her sister.)

eeetheygrowupsofast · 27/02/2014 14:52

My sister went private, I went to a grammar (so ok not that different but still difference between fees/state) - no cries of abuse and no resentment from me.

Though I called her Posho and she called me Commoner. Twas only a joke

merrymouse · 27/02/2014 14:55

I think it is wrong to deliberately give one child more opportunities than another.

However, in many situations a private school may be more suitable for one child and a state school more suitable for another.

katese11 · 27/02/2014 15:16

She also no longer spends everyday being X's sister
Another reason why I didn't go the same school as my sisters!

OryxCrake · 27/02/2014 15:19

I wouldn't say it was child abuse unless one child was being favoured over another. Different children suit different educational scenarios but that doesn't mean that they are differently loved and cared for.

One of ours was home educated; the other went to the local comp.

Both decisions were made for very good reasons, which we didn't necessarily share with the world at large, although each child was offered the option of choosing the other kind of education in the interests of fairness.

Both very loved DC with very different needs. They are both adults now and happy with the choices we made for them.

notthegirlnextdoor · 27/02/2014 15:55

Shurrup. I was privately educated in secondary school because I was am not any more smart. I'm the eldest of 5. My whole family pitched in as well as bursary etc. None of my younger siblings went without and none of them had the ability or were interested in going there. I should add that I hated it and left after a year. All 4 of my sisters are talented - music, art, cooking. I can't play anything or draw anything past a stick man and I can't bake at all. I've just spent the last week translating Latin. Kids have different strengths and should play to them.

notthegirlnextdoor · 27/02/2014 15:55

(Also I'm 27 and am studying with Open Uni)

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 27/02/2014 16:03

I rather suspect that behind every Olympic medalist is a resentful sibling.

I have spent a lot of time observing the impact of significant sporting talent on dh's family.

Mil and FIL - both decent people and loving parents played a sport to a pretty high level before they had kids. They had 3 kids. BigBIL, dh and LittleBIL.

When BigBIL was 9 or 10 his parents got him to try the sport. He didn't enjoy it and went and joined Scouts instead.

When dh was 9 or 10 he also tried the sport. Loved it. Started playing. Within 6 months he was "spotted" and started getting high level coaching. BigBIL was 14 by then so could stay at home but LittleBIL was only 2 or 3 so was dragged along with his toys. Many a family photo at this time of dh with bigger and bigger trophies and LittleBIL with bigger and bigger toys.

When BIL was about 5 he announced he wanted to play too. He was too little really but FIL started teaching him and from then on he would be found playing the sport's equivalent of keepi-uppy in the background.

At the same time dh started playing internationally for his age group. It occurred to one of the coaches that the much younger brother of his new star may be a good way to get a new even sparklier star.

LittleBIL started being coached properly.

When dh went to university at 18 he was the top 18 or under in his country but not good enough to make the senior team and LittleBIL was 11 and the top under 16 in the country.

When I met dh two years later LittleBIL was 13 and in the senior team. (And significantly better than dh.)

Don't want to reveal exactly what happened next (too identifying) but BIL is a commonwealth medalist.

Dh is very very proud of LittleBIL. BigBIL is proud but also slightly resentful about the family obsession with the sport. (Dh has no clue about this but to me it's pretty obvious.)

What saved the family was the big age gaps. BigBIL was nearly 18 before LittleBIL ever played.

Had the three lads had small age gaps I think the family could have been very damaged.

usualsuspect33 · 27/02/2014 16:06

If the other child has to go without holidays etc so the parents can afford the fees it's not abuse but I think there may be resentment in later life.

uselessidiot · 27/02/2014 16:06

I don't think it's child abuse unless that is they are telling the younger child they're stupid.

The private schools in our area are highly pressurised academically. This environment would not suit my dd1 in the slightest. The pressure would more than likely make her ill and actually impair her performance. Sending her to private school would be wrong IMHO. I've no idea what dd2 will be like academically but maybe the hothouse atmosphere would suit her. In which case sending her to private school could be a good thing.

Please note my argument above is entirely academic as private school will never be an option for either of them.

KeinBock · 27/02/2014 16:09

Attempting to gauge a child's intelligence at the age of seven is a recipe for disaster, in my experience. Plenty of early achievers end up very ordinary and vice versa.

However, I don't have a problem in principle with parents choosing different schools to suit their individual children's needs - whether state or private - as long as the children are happy and there is no favouritism or resentment.

midnightagents · 27/02/2014 16:12

Yabu. Child abuse?! I fundamentally disagree with private schools because of societal inequality (thats a whole other issue). But even I think you are being ridiculous here. Absolutely nothing to do with you how they oragnise their family, and an accusation of child abuse is just beyond the pale really.

Bogeyface · 27/02/2014 16:13

the child is 7, by the time it is 13 (when most private high schools start) the older one will have left, so that may be able to send the younger one if they also get a scholarship.

Scrounger · 27/02/2014 16:43

I think it depends on the situation whether or not it is unfair and whether that in turn creates issues between the children and their parents.

I have friends who have three children, the eldest is at a private primary school. The youngest two are at state primary, they could not afford to send all three. The eldest went as he was not achieving at primary due to a combination of a medical condition and how he learnt (similar to dyslexia but not quite if that makes sense) Since starting there he has thrived and has caught up with his peers. His younger siblings had no issues at the state primary and are doing fine there. The eldest went to so that he could have an equality of opportunity compared to his peers and his siblings not to gain an advantage.

In a similar situation I would do the same thing. Children may need different help at different times of their life, that is looking at them individually. Over the course of their lives I would hope / ensure that it all evened out and care needs to be taken to ensure that it is not viewed as favouritism.

brdgrl · 27/02/2014 16:52

YABU.
Each child's individual needs should be considered.

FWIW...I would not send my DD to a private school. My DH had two kids already - if he and his first wife had chosen to send them to private school (they didn't, so this is a hypothetical), then yeah, we'd have two in private and one in state. I'd have no problem with that.

notanotherusername1 · 27/02/2014 16:58

Do stop being so over dramatic with you idea that this is chid abuse. Insulting and just stupid.

Why do you care anyway, not any of your business.

I get on great with my neighbours but could not give two hoots how they educate their children.

notanotherusername1 · 27/02/2014 17:01

Oh and we considered doing the same. DS is very bright and got into a brilliant school (state) DD struggles and we pondered a private girls school with very small classes. Actually we have not written it off yet. It is the business of no one but us as her parents and I would expect my neighbours to be more interested in their own dc than what we are planning for ours.

Hullygully · 27/02/2014 17:08

It's like the holocaust

usualsuspect33 · 27/02/2014 17:12

I'd have been a bit pissed off as a child if I had to sacrifice my week in a caravan in Skeggy so my brother could go to a private school.

Pagwatch · 27/02/2014 17:12

Yes.

I saw the film. Meryl Streep was very good.

Tabliope · 27/02/2014 17:15

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if it's been said but maybe the oldest child went to state for primary, as the younger one is and maybe the younger one will be put forward for a scholarship/bursary when he's due to go to high school. By that time his older sibling won't have much longer to go in private so they'll be able to do the same for him.

Did they say in those words that he was less intelligent?