To not understand parents who send young kids to boarding school?

[Roxietrees]

I know some parents may not have much of a choice but to send DC to boarding school eg. Working in a foreign country with no international schools close by (although I believe that’s a career choice that’s probably not compatible with having kids). I also understand teens who maybe want that experience and if the parents have the money why not. But what I can’t get my head round is wealthy families living in the UK, where the mum is a SAHM and the kids are shipped off to boarding school aged 7 because it’s “family tradition”. Especially the ones that don’t come home at weekends. What is the point in having kids if you’re effectively going to put them in a posh care home by the time they’re 7??

Yes it does. Anyway, you think strangers raising your children is ok. I don't. Sorry I triggered your guilt.

well my kids (sorry, children, offspring, fruit of my loins, darlings) don't board so no guilt here. I do work in the current boarding environment though and simply don't agree with your sweeping, ignorant and out of date assertions. Boarders are not "raised" by the staff. They still spend the majority of their time at home and parents, more than ever, are available constantly on their phones. The people that have behaved the most badly on this thread with regard to how they speak to and treat others are those who are anti boarding. Those who have been through it, for good and bad, have been polite and factual throughout.

I can think of five students right now who are with us through a charity and have, through painstaking and hard work over a number of years, been given a sense of order, reliability, personal hygiene and responsibility that was missing before, from their actual parents. They have house parents that look out for them, check in with them, well over and above what is required by the job spec. I know houseparents who invite the boarders to their private residential space on the weekends and eevnings to interact with their own children and grandparents. Students who don't have siblings but get to be surrounded by peers in social / down time. I'm sorry it doesn't fit with your entrenched ideas but there you go.

I am sorry you went through this. I also really had a difficult time at BS.

I do think parents who send their children to BS, but who didn’t go themselves, have very little understanding of how insular, claustrophobic and gruelling the grind of 24/7 school can be. They believe the brochure version of the school not the real version - it’s like saying they know what living in spain is like because theyve been on holiday to mallorca.

And, when you are the “lucky” “privileged” child whose parents “have sacrificed so much for your education” it can feel like admitting you are not thriving is not an option.

'and parents, more than ever, are available constantly on their phones'

That is hardly bringing their kids up is it.

I'm all for private education but kids should go home when school finishes not live there.

I think I find it interesting that for a long time now we know that institutional care is less good than family care for children, that why their has been a move away from institutional care for children in care and a move towards foster care in family homes. In fact the preferred care for these children is care by another family member, then foster care and then as a complete last resort, institutional care. But then you have people, whose families are often very privileged, choose to send them into institutional care.

Obviously with long commutes or for the children of parents who travel maybe it can be preferable for older children but I’m fascinated at anyone defending sending a young child to be cared for by an institution and thinking it’s the best thing for them.

I don't think anyone has says it's the best thing, just that it's not universally awful, abusive, neglectful and damaging. Plenty of people have thrived and will testify to that. There doesn't have to be one right answer. What I object to is the sweeping assertions made that no-one can possibly have come out undamaged and if they think they have they're just wrong. Why is it so impossible for some posters to accept that in some circumstances, fit some kids it's great? No it's not for everyone but its not for no-one either.. especially in the modern system where hardly any go more than a few weeks at most without going home.

'I think I find it interesting that for a long time now we know that institutional care is less good than family care for children, that why their has been a move away from institutional care for children in care and a move towards foster care in family homes'

Yes it is quite fascinating that institutional care is seen by some as a good thing so long as it comes with a posh uniform and sporting trophies whereas council funded institutional care is rightly not seen as a good thing.

Dc should be at home in the evenings wirh their loving familes not living at school with a teacher paid to look after them.

Coming from the other side - I boarded on and off from the age of 10 to 16, and my school was in the town where I lived. Some weeks I boarded, others I was a day girl, walking the twenty or so minutes to my school.

I absolutely loved boarding. This is nothing to do with my home life which was happy (three brothers none of whom boarded at their schools). I could spend time with my friends, there was a good routine at school, I loved my dorm and the school traditions. I went to school on Monday morning and came home Friday evening. Very occasionally I would stay for a weekend.

Everyone has different experiences but based on mine I'd have boarded any children I'd had.

This. Maybe if you went to boarding school you could articulate it better but otherwise you're just a jumped up parent, judging other parents based on your set of values. Plenty of people have given lots of reasons why it's good or bad. You're just judging plain and simple. Hopefully your friend finds peace.

Ha ha you know them well!

Yes, state was never an option, full of "Riff Raff" thats exactly what my DB said to me.
He was very critical that we sent our kids to a state school.

I don't know he is very different to me, we both had the same upbringing & i guess thats the nub of the issue, who knows what or why we turn out as we do?

Boarding school wouldn’t be my first choice but, honestly, some of the shite parenting I see these days (kids given phones aged 6, glued to devices from morning to night, no extra curriculars at all, not learning to swim, watching porn really young, horrifically dysfunctional blended families, terrible diet, basics like tooth brushing not taught, no boundaries, “gentle parenting”), I think a good boarding school is a better alternative TBH.

Its not an alternative, boarding is incredibly expensive.

Parents who can afford this but chose state, will not allowing their kids to be doing what you've listed..... well, they'll try their best not too.

The senior school my DB choose had a drugs issue, several children expelled and according to their children, this was admitted too after they left, sneaking boys back for sex was common.

I suppose if the choice is bad parenting or no parenting then the no parenting and sending them away option is better.

However many parents do indeed monitor phone use, teach them to swim and give them boundaries. It is a shame if we need Matron or sir to do these things.

Parents who can afford this but chose state, will not allowing their kids to be doing what you've listed..... well, they'll try their best not too.

I appreciate your optimism here but some of the worst cases I have seen have been from rich families- you’ve heard of affluent neglect? And because those families are rich and middle class they can bat off social services if, god forbid, they suggest that kids should perhaps see their parents from time to time and not be online until 4am every day!

As I said I don’t really agree with boarding school but it’s a farce to approach this from the perspective that the other alternative is a functional home where a parent lovingly prepares a home cooked meal and tucks them up with a story every night. There are other parenting methods which in my view are equally damaging and if the parents can’t be arsed for whatever reason or insist on choices which damage them, the kids might be better off in school.

Ummm i never suggested thats what would happen but by enlarge wealth is a fairly good predictor of out comes.

Is there more neglect, proportionately, in wealthy families or deprived ones?

But both indicates a detachment.
The desperately poor might feel meaningful parenting is futile because their offspring’s outcomes are poor no matter what.
The rich may outsource child rearing because it did them no harm being sent away with the added bonus of a leg up academically.
Neither provides a positive developmental start for a child.

Yes whilst that may be true to some extent, the wealthy child is very unlikely to experience the shitte the poor probably will in their life including very poor health outcomes.

A lot of poor child care comes from ignorance/lack of education, if you can't read the leaflet in the health centre on a good diet..... this is why SureStart helped a great deal.

That’s pretty hard to get stats for because the wealth category that can afford boarding school is a far smaller percentage than the underprivileged. It’s the reasons for it that I find hard to excuse wealthy families for - poor families may have had little education themselves, have poor living conditions, and poverty makes meeting children’s basic needs incredibly difficult. However, if you have more than enough money to met your children’s needs yet you still choose to send them away, that is emotional neglect IMO. Many people I know of who’ve come from “old money” families (boarding school or no boarding school) say their parents were emotionally distant, more interested in their own social lives or careers, or out enormous pressure on them to “succeed”. Consequently a lot of these children grow up extremely emotionally closed off themselves and are very insecure