Sad my grandchildren will go to boarding school

[MiMaMe]

I have 2 sons, eldest lives locally we see his children most weeks. Youngest lives in Paris currently, but they move somewhat often. He and his wife have a 2 year old and are expecting their second. We have come to visit them for a week.
In conversation it has come up that they plan to send their kids to boarding school as they move about every 2 years. His wife boarded from 8, weekly boarding until 11 then full boarding. She went to a prestigious international boarding school and said it was incredible. They plan to replicate this, perhaps waiting until 11 to board at all if they can.

I don’t know many people who liked boarding, we considered it but decided it was very cold. They already have a nanny who seems to see our grandchild a lot more than her parent do. AIBU to be sad about this?

But you weren’t talking about the parent, you were actually denying a poster’s own positive experience of boarding school…?

YANBU, it's so sad. What's the point in having kids to send them to boarding school. but it's not your place to say anything, just accept it and spend time with them when you can.

I find this unnuanced argument is trotted out for so many things:

“Why bother even having kids if you’re going to…”

:send them to boarding school.
:work full time.

:not breastfeed.
:go out once in a blue moon with your friends…

It's just another way of mum shaming (let's face it, the dad get off free), dressed up as 'will no one think of the children'.

My kids both actively want to board, but aren't going to get the opportunity because we can't justify the fees although they are at private schools with boarding as an option. I suspect most of the people who object to boarding schools could never afford it either, but rather than admit it was never an option for them, they pour scorn on those who can afford it.

The biggest regret of my life is sending my eldest to boarding school. You can do all the research you like but you have no control over who is in their dorm / year group.

There is so much bullying in boarding schools and I remain utterly shocked at how the vast majority of parents gloss over it.

People who say boarding school is better than constantly moving and changing schools - that may be true. But one of the parents could settle so the child can go to one school.
But lots of parents will not do that as they do not want a long distance marriage, but are happy to be a long distance parent. They have picked who is most important in the family.

If both parents have careers, it is not always possible for one to 'settle'. Which is what it sounds like for the couple in the OP.

The kids can still come home at weekends and holidays, which are pretty long in the independent sector. Whereas most people only get a few weeks holiday. Who would choose to live separately bar maybe 4-6 weeks a year?

Choosing to live apart for extensive periods is a relationship killer. The relationships board is littered with people who haven't nurtured their relationships, and/or who have sacrificed their careers on the altar of motherhood, and are then surprised in middle life to find they have little in common anymore, they can't support themselves etc. Finding a way to make it work so that both parents have fulfilling careers and a strong relationship should be encouraged not dismissed as 'picking who is most important in the family'.

To offer a different perspective - I went to a Swiss boarding school from age 7 and absolutely adored the experience.
This may sound sad but the reality is my parents were never going to raise me. If I’d stayed with them and moved constantly, I’d have been raised by a combination of a nanny and an au pair. They’d have still been extremely busy with their jobs.
My mum was a diplomat, she managed to settle near my school for the first 3 years where I was a weekly boarder, my dad was back and forth between various offices but tried to be home on weekends. Still they had a weekend and holiday nanny.
My mum then passed away the summer I turned 10, quite unexpectedly. I was desperate to get back to school, didn’t really like being surrounded by sadness and quickly started full boarding.
My school had maximum 30 kids per year and 3 teachers per year for the primary years (middle and high school were subject teachers). You could either be taught entirely in English (no one really did this), half in French/German and half in English (the most popular) or 1/3 in French, German and English (what I did). English was always the Lingua Franca but having the opportunity to be fluent in 3 languages was such a gift. My school also ensured we all had tutoring in our mother tongue, either in person or for some languages virtually.
Of the 30 kids in my year very few were from one country, we learned so much about different cultures and now I have friends all over the world.
Then the trips, between ski week and frequently trips we got to see so much of the world.
My dad and I aren’t massively close, I see him twice a year, around Christmas and in summer. But I don’t know if that would have been any different if I had been raised by a nanny/au pair/governess combination.
I think the reality is for most of the children at these international boarding schools - the parents wouldn’t be raising them either way and boarding is definitely better than being moved all the time and being raised by nanny’s and au pairs.

I agree that long distance marriages rarely last over many years as it is difficult to sustain a meaningful relationship. And couples can see each other every weekend. But somehow parents are supposed to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children in the same circumstances?
It is almost impossible for two people to have a high flying career that means moving around the world every few years. The chances they will be in the same location every few years for their high powered job is very remote.
And most people accept when they have children their life changes in some ways.

But you are picking who's most important - the parents and their relationship with eachother - not the child's relationship with their parents.

@Notahat A good point. If your parents are going to have little to do with you and leave you to be raised by paid staff, you may be better at a good boarding school.

Exactly that - the nanny and eventually governess option seems the worst of both worlds. Never having the stability of being in one place and still not having a close bond with your family.

My nephews went to private school but didn’t board but after the first year the eldest wanted to and absolutely loved it. The youngest didn’t want to but did love staying at school for the odd weekend.

@herewegoagainy I agree with you, the chances of a married couple being both able to sustain high profile careers with synchronised moves every few years is low.

My dh always travelled extensively, always away 2 -3 days a week and sometimes more. I gave up my career (we did the same job) to provide a solid base for our children. Yes it wasn’t ideal but I would rather have a long distance relationship with him rather than a long distance relationship with my children given that their childhood passes so quickly. Frankly they needed me more than he did.

The military is obviously different as the distance and length of time away are another level.

YANBU. If people can't be arsed to look after their own children, they shouldn't have them.

This is a very honest take on boarding in my experience. Thank you for sharing it.

Due to various experiences I've had as a professional and through knowing people who boarded, I view boarding school as social services for rich people.

If a poorer parent had to hand over their child to an institution (no matter how nice, homely and educational) because they couldn't get it together enough to provide that child with a stable home it would at best be viewed as a sad reality, at worst as a symptom of a broken society.

Rich people do it and it's suddenly a great opportunity.

The reality is, it's the best option for children whose parents have such little feeling for them that they're happy for those children to be away from them for the majority of their mid - late childhood. Close, connected parents who actually care wouldn't be able to cope with their child being away for so long.

I agree with the sentiment that it works better at age 11 and older although I would say that's not true for all children - for some, the teenage years are their hardest years and they really need to care and attention of a parent. That said, sometimes an interested staff member can be a better source of support than parents who are ill-equipped to be parents.

I wonder how many people who deride boarding schools send their children to childcare all day from 1yo?

Either can be beneficial for a child. Either can be detrimental.

I've known children who have loved boarding, and I've known children who have hated it. In most cases I know the ones who hated it either acknowledged that they wouldn't have much liked the alternative either, or their parents pulled them out.

I also know a couple of people who have a very distant relationship with their parents, which they put down to being in nursery 8am-6pm from a year old and the before and after school school at primary, and then left to get on with it at secondary. They both feel that they'd have rather been at boarding school and would not have seen less of their parents, but they think they'd have felt less of a bother. Their parents maintain it was necessary to "maintain their lifestyle".

Essentially you're saying the same thing as I am - it's the parents who aren't very good parents that cause the issue - sending children to boarding school is just symptom really.

Parents with a strong connection to their children actually want to see them - the thought of them going to bed at night somewhere else is unbearable. Parents who are ok with it tend to be parents who aren't that bothered about much when it comes to their kids IME.

There’s no point in me saying anything. Posters who send their children away will always try to justify it as anything other than selfish and cold. Just my opinion. I don’t care if you disagree with me.

You are very arrogant. I started boarding school aged six, weekly boarding. My home was in the high mountains two hours drive from the nearest suitable school. My parents were lovely, the opposite of selfish and cold, I suspect it was harder for them than me but they selflessly put their feelings to the side so that I could thrive with a good education.

YANBU.

Why do people have children just to send them away the majority of the year. Selfish.

Sending a child away at six! I can not imagine it.

Sending a child away at six! I can not imagine it.

Different time, different country. It was our norm.

I know everyone has different experiences, but if there's no medical or psychological reason why a child can't live at home, I can't imagine sending your own child away. It's not necessary for both parents to have a career that requires they both frequently move, if that's the issue, and anyway lots of kids are moved around and do fine.

I don't see how you can be nearly as involved in their lives as the ideal parent should be, when you see them so rarely, and yes, I do question why people have children at all when they ship them off to school at a young age. It's possible to have a quality education without boarding, but the bottom line for me is that living with parents is more important than receiving a slightly better education.

It sounds awful. I’m sure they’d appreciate grandparents who could be around for them in holiday times?

I’m curious - do you maintain this belief if the parents are going to minimally involved (work extreme hours, attend evening and weekend functions frequently) and rely predominantly upon paid staff such as a nanny/au pair/governess, who may change out as frequently as every year in the case of the au pair (who in my case provided most weekend and evening care). Or can you see that stability, long lasting friendships and a stellar education may be more beneficial here.
Obviously you could say just don’t have children in that situation but I’m quite happy to be alive, I’m happy and I’m well adjusted so that alternative seems a little mean!