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.

Oh my goodness I really must do some work now, but I have enjoyed the heated debate!

anna i am not ignorant of the industry of charity or of the laws. but i think a valid point can be made to say that the law is an ass when protecting the rich educating their children behind charitable objectives.

custardo - I know the other side of the argument and have lived in several countries which place far greater restrictions on private schooling than the UK. And I know from first-hand experienced that your counterargument just doesn't work . Rich and educated parents always find ways around the system to ensure their children get a better education than "standard".

Custy's right about the benefits of the classes mixing - caused huge social change after WW2 because the people with power had actually spent lots of time at close quarters with the ordinary Joes and realised they were human beings too.

the difference between my argument and your anna, is that i am projecting what could be if rich people bought into a one tier system

they will not of course ever do this or let that happen, however i think it remains a valid counter arguemtn to your hypothetical projecting that you are employing ...lets say charitable objectives by sending your children ( if you do - i dont know) to private school thereby alowing poor urchins to get valuable mileage out of the tax you pay! which is rubbish

I agree with Anna on this. If private schools were abolished I don't think it'd improve the system at all.

The wealthy would buy out the poor by buying homes in areas that have the best schools meaning those schools would still be filled with the children of the rich, and those who couldn't afford housing in those areas would end up in the worst comprehensives.

Anna's in France so I think her points are theoretical.

It's not rubbish - it's perfectly valid.

Take childcare - currently parents pay to use childcare. But we can all imagine a scenario where childcare for babies/toddlers is free at point of access (like school). Should parents who opt out of universal free childcare because they want a nanny have to pay full whack for the nanny, out of taxed income?

er...yes

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

So why is putting them into school, or having them with another adult different? That is also loco parentis, if you want to split hairs.

I give my ds's care over to school for a week at a time when he goes on the annual school trip, and have done since he was year 6 - I trust them to care for him when in their charge, as I would a boarding school. Sending him on the school trip is not abdicating my parental responsibility is it? So why is sending a child to boarding school doing that, when you see them every 3 weeks and speak to them daily? How is that any different from leaving a dc at home with a Nanny for instance whilst the parents jet off around the world on business?

Boarding schools for some are a necessity; how do you think the Falkland Island kids get a sixth form education? Yep, boarding in the UK.

my analogy everyone can get a t-shirt at asda for £1.50...if you want to buy a better t-shirt, branded to give you status - then as you have the money you can do so - but don't expect to be lauded or to get a "privaliged persons t-shirt discount"

personally i would never send my kids away to boarding school not for love nor money
i love the fact i can get to them everyday and kiss them when they go to bed be here for them when they are feeling low when they are feeling poorly be here when i see them smile and are happy and sucure !for alot of kids who are sent away they must feel unloved and uncared for surely ?

I'm in favour of private schools but believe that if you choose to opt out of a universal system then yes you should pay for your chosen alternative from your own income.

Do you really want to pay all your money over to the government, Custardo, so that the government makes all the major decisions affecting your family's life? Because that's where your type of argument takes us...

And we all know communism failed

No it's not, Anna, as you know perfectly well. Universal services do not equal communism. Otherwise we'd already have it, what with schools and the NHS and all.

(Although Bill Bryson did say it was a shame communism wasn't tried here rather than the USSR as we are so good at queuing and it would have made little practical difference in the 70s any way!)

It's a continuum edam - if you carry down the route ad infinitum, you do reach communism.

So as an ex Naval wife debzmb62, did you stay in Plymouth for all your dh's career, or did you follow him around and move the kids each time? If the latter, how easy did you find it to get them into an acceptable school?

I can't see how if your daughter is in London and you are in Plymouth, as you say elsewhere, that you are any more 'there' for her, or able to kiss her goodnight, than I would be if I sent my ds to board.

I also disagree that kids who go to boarding school are in any way uncared for or unloved, or that the majority feel that way. The ones I know have excellent relationships with their parents.

if you carry down any route ad infinitum you end up with an extreme. Stupid argument.

I'd rather have universal education and healthcare available and risk the chance of communism than see people go without either.

I went to boardng school in the sixth form, I wanted to go, was at the age where I wanted as little to do with my parents as possible

For me, it was a positive experience precisely because I realised being away from my parents wasn't all it cracked up to be. I missed them, missed having that private family space to retreat to. As a result I appreciated my parents far, far, more than before and I think it enriched our relationship.

But of course it would be ludicrous to send your dcs to boarding school just so they realise how wonderful home really is. And as many have said, for some home is not wonderful.

A couple of families I know are planning to send their dcs to board at seven, because both parents work long hours and have decided this is the best answer to their childcare problems. Now that I find profoundly depressing.

Not stupid - the point is, where do we draw the line?

Suggest somewhere between universal services and communism? Not hard to find a gap there.

"A couple of families I know are planning to send their dcs to board at seven, because both parents work long hours and have decided this is the best answer to their childcare problems. Now that I find profoundly depressing."

I agree. But I think it is also profoundly depressing when children come home to a nanny all week because their parents are working late/away on business. The issue is not boarding school here (which may be the lesser of two evils) but the fact that the parents are overburdened with work.

Oh really edam? It's probably the biggest political issue countries ever face.