Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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?

112 replies

lolstevelol · 12/09/2025 06:11

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

OP posts:
MyLimeGuide · 12/09/2025 07:11

Absolutely YES unfair.

DeathStare · 12/09/2025 07:13

This is so hard to answer without more context. On the face of it,it seems very unfair but the situation could be more nuanced.

Two of my DC had hobbies with very different price tags. One was practically free and one rather expensive, but they chose their own hobbies and neither was interested in the other's hobby. Should I have stopped one DC doing the hobby that started out cheapish and ended up expensive, just because her Dsis wanted to do a very cheap hobby?

A friend of mine has three DC - the first went to a state school, numbers 2 and 3 to private school (secondary). However there was a ten (maybe eleven) year age gap and the family finances had changed considerably in that time. They couldn't come close to affording it when their first DC was 11, but by the time DC2 was 11 they could easily afford it (and DC1 was at uni by that time) so why not?

stayathomer · 12/09/2025 07:15

The school, yes, the extra curricular/ hobby I think it depends actually sorry maybe both depend on whether the other child wants to bother. There’s a lot of hobbies/ sports out there that are in different price brackets eg golf vs basketball/ football or horses vs badminton

XelaM · 12/09/2025 07:17

KpopDemon · 12/09/2025 06:33

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.

We had the exact same situation in my family (I was the daughter in your scenario and my brother like your son). I can honestly tell you it absolutely never caused any resentment on my part whatsoever. I liked my state school and came out with top grades (actually better grades than my brother at his private school) and we went to equivalent RG London unis for Law and Engineering respectively for our undergrad degrees. We get on super well and I am always very proud at all his achievements.

RosesAndHellebores · 12/09/2025 07:18

It has to be based on the needs of the child. I grew up in Kent in the 60s/70s. Clever siblings went to the grammar school, siblings who didn't pass the 11+ often went to the local private s pools rather than the sink secondary mods. Different children in the same families went to different schools so they all got their needs met.

OverlyFragrant · 12/09/2025 07:18

If its purely financial reasons then yes its unfair.
If its because the 2nd won't benefit from a private school environment or doesn't want to do the extra curricular, then perfectly OK imo.

I was actually thinking through yesterday how being 1 of 5 kids and how time, money and food was spread so thinly that it really impacted my life chances.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 12/09/2025 07:19

My eldest sibling went to private. I didn’t, it doesn’t bother me.

PinballWizened · 12/09/2025 07:21

@KpopDemon I am the elder sister in a scenario similar to yours. No resentment here. I got into grammar school from state primary, brother not academic and likely dyslexic went to private school and college and being very practical and outdoorsy had more expensive hobbies.
We’re now both happy, hardworking and successful in our very different fields, and good friends.

Runningismyhappyplace50 · 12/09/2025 07:21

Yes it is unfair if they have the same parents

OneChicRoseRobin · 12/09/2025 07:26

Perhaps another option: children who go to private schools have no inheritance rights. That way, both children would be offended.

northernballer · 12/09/2025 07:26

I don't get a calculator out and work out how much I spend on each child to ensure it's equal, but they do all have the same opportunities and they all seem happy enough.

Overthebow · 12/09/2025 07:33

BananaPeels · 12/09/2025 06:54

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.

Edited

I wouldn’t have another child if I couldn’t afford to give them the same opportunities, or would have to take away from the older DC. We planned 2 DCs and can afford to give them the opportunities and experiences we feel are important (that doesn’t include private school but does include both doing the extracurricular they want, plus having enough to properly save for both their futures), we won’t be having a 3rd DC as we couldn’t afford what we want for all of them.

RhaenysRocks · 12/09/2025 07:37

OneChicRoseRobin · 12/09/2025 07:26

Perhaps another option: children who go to private schools have no inheritance rights. That way, both children would be offended.

Edited

Is that serious suggestion? So a child who is sent to private school because they are ND or have some other additional need then get punished for it? I would hope the sibling would be counting their blessings that they've had such a comparatively easy time and are capable of thriving in the world without an additional benefit.

Theroadt · 12/09/2025 07:40

KpopDemon · 12/09/2025 06:33

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.

Pay for daughter fully through uni but do not pay for DS’s uni would help even it up. My oldest son left indy to go to state sixth form and younger stays at indy for sixth, and that’s how we’ve cut it, with their agreement.

StaringAtTheWater · 12/09/2025 07:44

@Kpopdemon I really wouldn't feel guilty about this at all. I believe the research says that bright kids from happy homes thrive at any decent school (so the uplift from private school would likely be minimal) You'd be better off saving it for future house deposits.

Where the right private school really makes a difference is for average and below average kids (which is why my children go to them!)

damemaggiescurledupperlip · 12/09/2025 07:45

I have known two families whose sons have been sent to private school, and the daughters to the local state school. State provision was the same for both sexes in terms of quality.

one example was ages ago, when I was a child, another much more recent

Motheranddaughter · 12/09/2025 07:47

Of course it’s unfair and will breed resentment

Ally886 · 12/09/2025 07:48

I think in some conditions it's okay.

In areas where there are grammar schools the top 10% are isolated and tend to do very well. Local comprehensive schools then naturally have a lower level of academic students.

I passed my 11+ and went to a fantastic school but my sister didn't pass so was left to go to disruptive comprehensives or private. My parents chose the latter and there is no bitterness from me

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 12/09/2025 07:50

Sometimes people's circumstances change and they just can't give the same opportunity to a younger child.

Sometimes they can't find the money to pay VAT on private schools, or they have a surprise third baby and can't be in three places at once. Sometimes they just get a bit overexcited with the first and then realise that it's not sustainable for all their children in the long run.

But yes, on the whole I think it's unfair to do something for your eldest child without at least thinking about whether you will be able to give your younger children equivalent opportunities.

Ally886 · 12/09/2025 07:53

Theroadt · 12/09/2025 07:40

Pay for daughter fully through uni but do not pay for DS’s uni would help even it up. My oldest son left indy to go to state sixth form and younger stays at indy for sixth, and that’s how we’ve cut it, with their agreement.

Show quote history

That would impact the sons personal finances, borrowing scope and entire future where the daughter would have a career without the student debt.

Your son would have to vastly out earn your daughter to give them the same quality of life in the long run.

Children have no autonomy at 11 but to hold your decision against them as an adult is vastly unfair

Flamingos89 · 12/09/2025 07:54

Yes unfair

marnieMiaou · 12/09/2025 07:55

Yes, seen it several times and it often causes resentment in adulthood.

jeaux90 · 12/09/2025 08:26

Sometimes treating everyone the same is the most unfair thing to do though. If I had two kids, one very academic and got into a state grammar for example, then another with SEN who would benefit from small class sizes and drown at a big secondary school then absolutely I would.

You find the school that is right for your child!

My DD16 went to private school, AuDHD and it was brilliant for her. My NDN went to the local secondary school (bright and sporty) her sister went private as she had SEN.

Makes sense to me. It’s about equal opportunity not treating everyone exactly the same.

Mommyfor4 · 12/09/2025 08:26

I can't understand how anyone can even ask such an immoral question?!!?? CHILDREN WILL ALWAYS BE TREATED EQUALLY!!! It should go without saying! I know that unfortunately this is not always the case. It makes me both sad and angry.

We have 4 children, 3 of whom are biologically ours. In addition, social welfare has placed a child with us who was 6 months old at the time. Even though he is not biologically ours, we ALL still consider him as our own. Our own children always introduce him as their brother. Our biological children are all adults now. Yet, for example, at Christmas, birthdays, etc., we have always made sure THAT EVERYONE RECEIVES A GIFT OF BROADLY EQUAL VALUE, also placed with us, (now 8 years old) which we consider as our own. I couldn't think of giving him less because he is not biologically mine.

Mother's love is not tied to biology. The unequal treatment of children leaves deep scars on a child!!! It should be banned!

Fabrikick · 12/09/2025 08:28

If its because its unaffordable rather than in the best interest of all of the children then it feels more unfair especially for extra circulars. However life isnt always black and white, my DB struggled a lot in school and so my parents paid for him to go private whilst I went to the local comp; I didnt begrudge it as knew he wouldnt have coped where I was. If it was an exciting hobby though and meant I couldn't do any I would have been annoyed.