in thinking that if it's generally accepted that the family is usually the best place to raise children....

[gabygirl]

...... (except in cases where there is serious abuse and neglect) when it comes to the care system, why so many people seem to abandon this principle when it comes to the issue of boarding school?

I haven't been able to stop thinking about this issue all morning. Last night I sat up until midnight watching that documentary on channel 4 about the boys who were abused at Caldicott. It stirred up so many sad feelings in me and made me cry. I felt so sorry for those men.

I went to boarding school myself at the age of 11 and although I wasn't sexually abused, I was so starved of intimacy and affection in my relationships for the next 5 years that it really affected my sexuality when I finally became sexually active at 15.

Did anyone else see it? The other thing that was sad about the film was the men's desperation to protect their parents against the knowledge that they'd exposed them to abuse, and in one case turned a blind eye to it even after they knew it had happened.

Scary - Im agreeing with that

Just agreeing with the op, that being in a loving family environment is better than boarding where possible.

If boarding schools were invented now, they would be thought a barbaric and ridiculous proposition. It is only because they are so ingrained in our culture that we accept them so easily. Those boys at Caldicott were badly abused because the system let them down but the wider issue of voluntary separation from family is difficult to understand. The lesson is simple, do not allow under 16s to be become part of that system where there is alienation from one's family unless there is abolutely no choice. Choosing boarding school means that you are abidicating your continual parental responsibility. Acknowledging that is tough for parents.

Steph - If you are replying to me, youve lost me now im afraid?

claw - sorry, old thing, was replying to an earlier post of scaryteacher!

bamboostalks, excellent post. Your last sentence hits the nail on the head.

Message withdrawn

But a boarding school is 1) a money making business and 2) there to provide education.

Those imperatives are not conducive to an atmosphere of unconditional love. Of COURSE what teachers provide is not unconditional love. They may provide very good teaching and care but that is not the same as a family, of which the only motivation is to nurture.

Very few boarding schools are out to make money - they are normally charitable institutions, not money making businesses.

Lots of families are not, or cannot be, as nurturing as we fondly imagine.

there is something inherent in boarding schools that means children suffer - they are separated from their families.

"The real meaning of love is acceptance, caring for someone, putting their interests ahead of your own, doing what is necessary for their good. "

yeah... that's like the love i have for a friend

not the same as the love of a parent. not at all.

The very thought of boarding school makes me shudder.

they have charitable status - that's slightly different to being a charity. They do not have a charitable purpose; their purpose is to provide education to those who can pay, and therefore they have a vested interest in continuing to make money, and that gives them a financial imperative.

And as stated earlier in the thread the OP is talking about cases where there is NOT abuse in the home. Just because some homes are abusive, is not an argument for boarding schools.

Stephanie - I really wish you would stop extrapolating from what is actually in my posts to what you wish was there.

Firstly 'prioritising' was in quotation marks and with a definition of what you seem to think is prioritising before that - that is, give up your career which feeds, clothes, houses and educates your child, so that they do not have to go to boarding school. That is not practical or sensible at all.

Secondly, as my ds is loved, fed, clothed, well housed, fed books and educated, and I gave up my career to move abroad so we could be together as a family, then yes, I think consider and fulfil his needs. What I do not do is to put his needs ahead of the family as a whole; that in my book is sublimating the needs of the other individuals in the family to him. I do not 'prioritise' his needs at the expense of the other two of us in the family unit.

Prioritise can mean to arrange items in order of their relative importance, or, to give priority to. In either case, I suspect that you mean that the needs of the dcs come first, second and last. Not a healthy family dynamic in my opinion.

Yes, I have met plenty of selfish little monsters with fawning parents at parents evenings - I taught several at state school. They didn't like it at school when teachers reprimanded them or said no...it's a shame the parents didn't say no to them at home. Equally, I know many perfectly pleasant children who are brought up at home, both from civilian and service backgrounds.

Finally, I don't have to justify my views to myself at all; I've grown up a service kid, and am married to a serviceman. Boarding school is one of the options we can exercise if we decide to. End of.

I believe parents must parent. I think it's their duty. So all I can do is agree to disagree with you scaryteacher.

"Having charitable status" is exactly the same thing as "being a charity". And since when was providing education not a charitable activity?

You are ignorant and ill-informed.

The only motivation of your family may be to nurture SB; but as Anna points out, that is not true of many families. Some of the families I met whilst teaching made me shudder.

Err- providing Education to those who can pay, is not a charitable action! It's a business transaction.

Yes, scaryteacher some families are not good but that is not an argument for boarding school

I think parents should parent too, but I don't consider that sending your child to board is abnegating or abdicating that responsibility at all. Putting them into care on the other hand, is.

I have worked many years in the charitable sector Anna - is it possible you are not so informed?

Not in English law, StephanieByng. In your mind, perhaps .

Putting a child into a boarding school means someone ELSE is in loco parentis. You really can't have it both ways.

Being in care, again, no logical place in this debate

I too worked for many years for a charity that worked in many fields, including education, so I do have a very good idea of what is allowed in English law . I was the Secretary General of said charity, so had to deal rather a lot with legal issues...

Anna there is a huge difference between Eton, a charitable status school, which exists to provide education to the world's most priveleged, and a charity which provides services. My point is about the financial imperatives of each type of organisation. But it's a side issue really.

So is anyone actually disagreeing that a loving family home is better than boarding school?