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.

There is actually no difference (except in your warped mind).

Anna - Are you replying to me, its confusing?

No, to Stephanie. x-posts.

Putting them into ANY school, including the local comp, means that someone else is in loco parentis whilst the parent isn't physically present, as all teachers are aware.

Should the parents start coming on all the school trips including the residential ones; or be at all the after school clubs, or at their kids playdates or sleepovers?

Logically, you are abdicating your parental responsibility by sending your child to school at all. I presume therefore that you home ed.

Message withdrawn

But I don't actually agree that a "loving family home" is always better than boarding school, especially from 14+. Some children just thrive at boarding school and feel restricted in their albeit loving family home - boarding schools do offer masses of opportunities that all family homes cannot offer.

Anna - it's a side issue, I don't think it's important to me to debate it really. My point is that one of the imperatives of a school is a financial one. Which is another difference between a school as an institution, and a family. It's really not a biggie and I'm not that interested in it as a huge issue. It's part of the picture. I'm sure you're ever so much more knowledgeable than me and I take your point about the legalities.

I can think of a couple of families who can hide the fact that they are crap, emotionally bankrupt parents by paying others to look after them including the school fees......but it's o.k "because they work hard"

legally i suspect that anna is right, the company i work for is a charity limited by guarentee.

however if there were to be a debate - not about the law itself - but whether despite the law - a private school educating people who can pay for it, is actually a charitable objective - then i would say not.

perhaps historically there were some charitable objectives, but in a country where education is a right - the ability to pay for top class education is not a charitable objective IMVHO. I think the law is an ass in this case and probably serves to save millions on tax etc.

OK Scary, so there's no difference between sending them to day school and sending them to board. OK.

I agree Scaryteacher, I don't see why there is a distinction based on where the child sleeps.
You can neglect or fulfil your responsbilities as a parent and have a strong relationship with them whether your child is away at school or home with you, whether you do it all yourself or use 24 live-in childcare.

All charities have a financial imperative. And a lot of charities are a lot less ethical in the pursuit of their financial goals than are any boarding school I have ever come across.

24 hour live-in childcare

so are the proponents of boarding school basically saying they are there to serve crap families who don't care about their children? (And forces families/others who have to move around a lot.)

custardo thanks you said what I meant.

Bloss I do have experience and knowledge of boarding. I have not said I have not. You're not amenable to change your view, either, are you?

Families have financial imperatives too, don't they?

I really don't know what you are getting at.

What I said Anna - the imperative of a family is to nurture, we don't earn money from our children.

Did I actually write that? No, I just pointed out that if your child is with another adult and that you are not physically present, then that other person is in loco parentis. Therefore, by extension as you wanted to argue in an earlier post, the parents are not fulfilling what you consider to be their duty and parenting.

You are extrapolating again from what I have written to what you would like to be there and isn't.

oh yes, of course charities have to be financially astute - in fact our financial director is paid a disgusting amount of money to ensure that we got a person from the private sector of a high calibure.

lots of charities may not have what the layman would consider to have charitable objectives - i wonder this a lot regarding the company that i work for - whether the objective is market growth or actually the kindly organisation of philanthropic values it started.

There is a movement in the UK to remove the charitable status of private schools.

Why would this be fair? People who use private schools are already paying for state school through taxes and are saving society a great deal of money by not taking up the place(s) at state schools that they are entitled to. Should they really be taxed again for using a private school?

I agree with Stephanie.
It is very important for children to have a loving home to return to away from school and the fact that some homes aren't does not count as an argument for boarding school.
I don't know how you can leave your dc there, knowing that ant spontaneous affection or conversation with you is notgoing to happen for the next week or term or whatever must feel very wrong

custardo - I agree, what the (often ignorant) layman thinks ought to constitute proper charitable objectives and what (really rather restrictive) English laws considers proper charitable objectives are different things .

but scaryteacher it's not logical; the fact that most parents find it appropriate to give their child to a school for 6 hrs a day, is not anywhere near the same principle as giving over their 24 hour care for some weeks at a time. So why say that someone who is happy to send their child to school, is giving over the parenting in the same way? It's just not the case.

oh anna that old chestnut - this is now going to turn into a state v. private debate which gets no where and is done at least once a week - you know quite well the other side of the argument - not taking up places indeed if there were no private schools the state sector would improve immeasurably, becuase once ptolemy is forced to mix with the plebs the powerful and rich in the country ( if they stayed here) would ensure that laws were changed and resources were given and class sizes were smaller

private school and boarding school is a buy in to the elite of society, to ensure that your child moves in the right circles - sure the education is better - but this is merely half of the equation - its about moving in the right circles, making the right friends - the leaders of industry, thepeople n power.

to suggest that richer people do it as somephilanthropic exercise to allow more state children to go to school is laughable

all the children that need a school place will get one as you well know.

Oh, don't start this parents using private schools are doing the great unwashed a favour canard running again. We all pay taxes into one great big pot to cover all functions of government, central and local. We don't have named accounts that say 'you, Mrs X, have put in £20,000 this year, here, have a hip operation on us whether you need one or not'!

I don't use all sorts of things that my taxes pay for. That's the deal.