Do you think it’s unfair to send one child to a private school or an expensive extracurricular activity while not offering the same to the other?

[lolstevelol]

This has come up in family debates over the years, where the eldest child is sent to a private school or given the opportunity to do an expensive extracurricular activity, such as karting, but there isn’t enough money left to offer the same to the younger siblings

Yes, I think it is unfair. I wouldn't have sent my first DC private if the others wouldn't have the same opportunity.

Of course it is, what reason could there be to think otherwise?

Yes. All siblings should be given the same or equal opportunities.

Is it unfair to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on one child but not the other?

Is that the actual question?

Are both siblings to the same parents? I’ve known second families where they can’t afford to put the DC to private school, but the DC from one person’s previous marriage has.

All kids must be given the same opportunity or at least equal. I got my eldest who has sen into a great sen school, my youngest doesnt have sen but he will be going to a decent senior school so its fair. (Local comp is horrendous) equal opportunities for all dc or none at all.

It depends on why, sometimes a different school environment is necessary for a child to thrive, in those situations the whole family would benefit from one child getting more support.

Sometimes one child has a genuine interest in something that costs more.

If it is just favouritism then that's a different matter.

There's an important distinction between equity and equality.

We have an inverted situation - dc1 is academically gifted and goes to an excellent all-girls state secondary where she is aiming for 9s at GCSE (and likely to get a good clutch of 8s and 9s in reality). We could not have afforded to send her to a private school at the time she needed to apply and why would we, when she has a fabulous free education on our doorstep? We boost her with extra curriculars, nice vacations, private dental work etc. So she is living a very good life.

Ds2 came along later after an age gap and an upturn in our family finances. Ds2 is not academically inclined and there are no great options for mixed/boys’ secondary school locally. We could now afford private school for him.

It was actually my dd who said that her db will need to go to private secondary if he is to have any chance of a good education. We are considering it. We know it isn’t “fair” but nothing in life is fair. We give dd a very good life and we will subsidise her at uni, buy her first car, give her a chunk of cash for her house deposit. Over the years we will make it up to her perhaps not exactly same in £££ but definitely in support and guidance too. I am trying to decide: Will ds2 appreciate us sinking “his” money into his education? Once it’s spent there won’t be as much left to help for, for example, set up in a trade or start a business.Or should we accept he’s going a non-academic route in life and throw our cash into investments so he has those to fall back on in adult life?

I don’t want to create reasons for one sibling to resent another. It’s a hard choice and we would have to be very mindful of the risk dc1 becomes bitter about it when she realises that part of her own inheritance will be spent on her db, in effect. But then again it’s our money and our choice how we invest and spend our money.

I’m still very torn because I know it’s unfair but the reason for it are based in logic.

I agree with kpop - it’s all very straightforward on paper or in Cinderella style iterations of wicked stepparents but in real life people’s circumstances change sometimes radically over the years, children may have different needs and so on.

You really shouldn't be.

My parents raised me and my siblings with several principles but one we heard a lot was "fair doesnt mean equal"
As children we eyeballed but its true.

I find this modern parenting insistence everything he precisely equal so babyish.
When my kids share snacks the baby discreetly always gets the bigger half /portion because hes underweight.

This and your situation are both excellent examples of fair doesnt mean equal.

Yes. I do. Not offering all your kids the same advantages is baffling to me. Unless it’s an unforeseen loss of income or similar.

There’s a bit of a nuance to this as private school and karting are two separate things. Some children thrive better in a different education environment do I don’t think it’s wrong, for educational purposes, for siblings to go to different schools. The fact that one may offer better extra curricular activities is a bit of a red herring. I mean yes that could be a bit unfair but it’s also a choice that is separate from the education.

Close in age siblings not too far apart in needs and circumstances - you absolutely have to treat them to roughly equal opportunities. Where it gets more complex is when there is a bigger discrepancy in age or abilities.KpopDemon's story is a good example of this. You have done your best for the first child, and one way of looking at it is it is only fair to do your best for your second, and then be mindful to manage any financial discrepancy.

I think there has to be equality of opportunities which might not look like identical schooling or activities but should be the equivalent level of support/education for all children (and especially important if they are half sibilings).

Life isn’t that straightforward.

Circumstances change, age gaps are different. Different needs and abilities.

Also schools change so as pointed out above one may be able to get a decent state school and the other can’t.

Unless it's a straight out we had 2 planned children 3 years apart and only intend on spending on DC1 it isn’t that simple.

Massively unfair, my PIL did it, sent DH brother to private boarding school, not him. The brother was very much the golden child, it drove a wedge between the brothers due to the difference in treatment between them. DH has been NC with his family for 20 years now.

If it's just because "they deserve it" then yes it probably is unfair.

But you don't know the ins and outs and reasoning.

Finances change - my brother, only 3 years younger than me and 6 from dsis has a very different financial state than we did. Things that we wouldn't have even considered worth asking, he did because the money was there. As a child sometimes I felt hard done by, as an adult I understand.

I also had a friend who went to private but her siblings didn't. Her siblings had quite significant disabilities and her parents knew that time wise she got the short deal, so decided that would give her a boost to make up for the times she had to, because of their circumstances, take low priority.
She said that most people she knew growing up didn't know that, and she did get a few snotty comments about her being favoured or spoilt.

in theory yes everything should be equal but what do people do if they have 2 children they can afford and those children are all set in school and extracurricular and then a couple had another when there is no more money to go around? You can’t take away from the elder 2 as that wouldn’t be fair- you are setting up a lifetime of resentment.

someone in family is falls slightly into the above box in that when they were young they showed promise in a sport and were being encouraged to take it further. In the end the parents decided that they couldn’t afford it because they had 2 other younger children and they wouldn’t have the time because of the others. The eldest didn’t get to pursue it as a result and they never really got over it. They feel their parents let them down.

No, it’s not necessarily unfair, of course not. My elder child went to state school, my younger to private school - that was because the elder was academically able and would do well anywhere. The younger would struggle - so she went to private school. As expected, the elder outperformed the younger at GCSEs.

My elder child did an expensive extracurricular activity for many years - which later became their profession. The younger tried a few different activities but nothing really gelled with them.

My elder child did not go to university, and all those associated costs. My younger child did.

As pp have said it's about what each needs, not what's exactly equal. I support my teens in their chosen hobbies up to what I can manage but I don't add it up. One costs more than another but they do them to the same sort of level. If someone is NT, thriving, confident and academic and are happy in a good local state school that's brilliant. If their sibling is not any one of those things and would sink without trace but would accomplish an education at private, then it's what needs to happen. You provide opportunities and education but that doesn't have to look the same. As is so.often argued about on here, a private education is not always better or needed...but sometimes it is.

It's a tricky one. In reality all children in a family should receive equal amounts of time/money and advantages.
My husband already had two teenagers when I met him. We then went on to have two children of our own. My children have had the 'better childhoods' in terms of paid for activities, days out, decent clothing/shoes and a nicer home/better school.
The reason for this is quite simply because I chose to work full time rather than rely on benefits (older kids were children in the late 80's/early 90's so not sure what they actually received, think housing benefit was one of them as they lived in a council house). I went back to work 5 months ish after the birth of each child, and at the time it was the better decision financially for us hence the higher standard of living my kids have had.
I am also likely to receive a decent inheritance in the (hopefully) dim and distant future (this is by no means guaranteed though for obvious reasons and part of why I don't dare stop working! ) which will eventually benefit my two children. My husbands first two children will receive next to nothing in comparison as they come from a long line of non working/benefit claiming family (my husband is the only one with a work ethic, I often tell him he's the milk man's kid!) but I won't be funnelling my kids inheritance whatever it may be their way. I might choose to help by paying for childcare or holidays etc if I have the means but that's about it.
Not everything in life can be equal.

This is our situation. DS18 has a natural talent for a particular sport, we've paid for him to attend an academy in a different part of the UK for 3 years. Annual cost is probably around £8k.
His younger siblings will go to a local sixth form unless something else arises.
His younger siblings benefit from us having more disposable income than we used to. We also pay into ISAs to try and balance out (at least) the Child Trust Fund he received but they won't.

It’s not black and white. I know several families where the second child has struggled and the parents sent them private but left the older child where they were as they were fine.

Dd1s best friends sister has health issues and fell out with her friends and was unhappy. Parents moved her to a small private. Her older sister was happy at the state and is much more confident generally. She’s a lovely girl and doesn’t resent it at all.

if the second child needs the school/wants to do the activity - yes it’s unfair.

But if they don’t need/want it - it’s fine. Each child is different and we should be offering them the opportunities they want, not treating them as clones of each other.

My older sister was sent to private boarding school for A-levels and I wasn’t. I think my parents reasoning was that it would be better for her chosen career whereas I was not set on a chosen career. I don’t know, we are estranged now, her choice.
i think parents make the decisions they think are right at the time for whatever reason. Who went to private school was the least of the issues in our family.