Controversial dilemma...should I go from part time to full time work to send DC to private primary?

[MmeMoufle]

Ok girls, please be nice to me on this one. I know I don't live in the Gaza strip and have any real problems at all but I am spending much time mulling over this one and would appreciate your thoughts...

I have 2 DC and I work in the secondary part of an independent school for 5-18 year olds. When DS was born I dropped down from full time to 0.5 which, for me, was the perfect balance. I get to spend time with my wonderful kids and keep my job which I love. I am now on maternity leave after having DD and will also be going back part time.

However, my school offers a 50% discount in fees for staff's children. This means I could send them both there for £600 a month. But the discount is pro-rata so if I continue to work 0.5 I'll only get 25% off (and less salary of course!) so we wouldn't be able to afford it. If I went full time, we could afford it with the discount.

JObs don't come up very often in my Department. My HoD is retiring the summer after this one in June 2010 so if I want to go full time I would have to apply for some of her hours from Sept 2010. If I don't get the extra hours then, it could be literally years until they come again.

BUT DS will only be four and DD will be two. Going full time then would mean a year of full time nursery for him and, much worse, three years of full time nursery for her. I always said I wouldn't return to full time work if at all possible until DD started school

We have a good local primary but at the end of the day, the classes are still twice the size. I don't know what to do - would I be insane to pass up on a 50% fee remission? Or would I be mad to put a two year old in full time nursery? I want to do my absolute best for my children, as do we all, but I can't decide which will do them more good in the long run - two days a week with Mum while tiny or an independent education?

I think you are in a great position and i would do it - i really would.

I wouldn't do it since you say that the local primary is a good school. I am personally extremely uncomfortable with LO's in FT nursery and felt that 2 days a week was ample for my DC's so that would be the dealbreaker for me. I think that the previous posters suggestion of starting off state with a view to increasing your hours at a later date sounds ideal. It will be great to work FT when the dc's are in school but still have the holidays off with them but as I wouldn't use FT childcare if I had a choice then I wouldn't go for it.

Fivecandles - Thanks for your thoughts I have considered this way of doing things.

You are right, the hours may eventually come up (although my colleague has literally had to wait a decade to increase to full time!) or I could subsidise my income with tutoring etc. However, I would have to do quite a bit to make up for the increased salary plus increased discount combo

My main worry is I don't want to muck DS about, pulling him out of his primary after two years and making him leave friends etc. Also I think once he started there, DH might get much more determined on the issue and say "It's fine, let's just leave him"

agree with seeker.

Agree it seems like too good an opportunity to pass up. 50% off is not to be sniffed at-your littlest one is two so a good age for nursery and presumably you do not do very long days or a commute so would be home at 5ish and therefor have an evening with them?
I'm facing sort of the same decision (but without the fee reduction) ie good local primary for DS and work part time or fabulous local prep and go back after maternity leave full time-but the difference we both have an hours commute each way, I do 8-5.30 ish but DH works very long hours and my youngest is only 5 months.
I think i am going to take the part time option for now and opt for good local primary-but it's been a hard decision. And I know also that I am extremely, extremely spoilt to even have a choice.

Forgot to say, the other spanner in the works with the wait and see approach is that the private school is also oversubscribed and has a waiting list.

Most parents are having to start their kids off there in Year 1 now to get a place. Both DC have their names down already (on the advice of the registrar, just in case), DS year for 2011 is full already and DD year for 2013 is half full. Half full and the future pupils aren't even a year old yet!!

Oh sorry misread post-but I see DD will be 2 by the time you actually have to go full time so my advice remains the same!
I agree I would not be keen on FT nursery for a 7 month old-just my personal thing though many many colleagues of mine have had great experiences and have bright articulate well adjusted children who have been in nursery from tiny. FT for a 2 year old with 18 weeks hols a year is a different matter though surely??

She'd be two years, three months old when I went full time.

The holidays are significant indeed. My mum thinks it's a no brainer and that of course I should send them. Mind you, I'm an only child and she took 10 years off work when she had me so she can't really advise me on juggling FT work with two young children

Might your mum be prepared to have the little one for one or two days a week in term time for two years so she didn't have to do full time nursery so young? Depending on your mum, this may or may not be preferable to nursery, but it might make you feel better about it.

I would absolutely LOVE for my Mum to have DD two days a weeks. But she lives 200 miles away!

Ahh, not a viable option then - pity!

I think you have to go with your instincts on this ultimately. I loved the private prep but the thought of being out of the house 7-6 for 5 days a week with a 7 month old and three year old and DH often not back til 9 fills me with horror. So school hours and generous holidays (though I appreciate you do have a lot to do at home-my mum was a headteacher) with a 2 and 4 year old especially if you already know and are happy with the nursery seems much more doable to me.
However if your instinct is to run screaming at the thought of full time work then I think you have to give this due consideration. Could you save up and take up the option at secondary level?

Could you hire someone to look after the childen at home which is what we did and I think is nicer than nursery?

Our children went to private prep schools including one where their father taught at and one child only paid 15% of the fees, the one who got a discount from age 4 - 12. That worked out fine adn we both worked full time always even when they were babies.

What a tough one! I would baulk a bit at a child as young as your DD being in f/t nursery, but lots of kids do it and thrive and the end result is very desirable. There is also the reality of 18 lovely weeks of holiday when you can enjoy your kids.

On balance I would go for it in your position; it took me YEARS to find a school that I was truly happy with for my children so I would always say if you have a good option, do what you can to make it happen.

Have you tried talking to school, could there be a bit of a compromise here? I'm guessing that the fees rise as the children get older, so do you need to do ft now? Could you not perhaps work 0.75 now, with a view to doing ft when your youngest hits secondary? (and presumably, the fees rise). That gives you 37.5% discount now, and 3 days at home with your children and only 4 days at nursery - or perhaps you could do short days?

I teach too and it is our plan that in the long term, I'll go FT to pay for school fees. We have made the decision not to do it whilst my children are at primary (DD1 is currently at a state primary), but I hope to do it when she goes to secondary school. That said, I don't teach in a private school, so that makes my decision easier!
HTH

get a spread sheet and work out what both would cost in todays money over say the next 10 years. Factor in the extra nursery (at no discount) for 2.5 years if you go full time against the money you will save in fees in the long run. Also factor in saving money on not having to drive to 2 schools. Anything you can think of really.

Could you become a reliever or do some tutoring once both your children are in school (okay so you don't get the discount, but the extra money may ofset that and you would still get the extra time with your children now).

I would do the FT work given you get 18 weeks of holidays.

You will have one or two years where the children are in nursery more than you would like during term time but then years after that where you are very happy with their education. I know the preschool years are vital but even dd will at least be 2.

More importantly you have the holidays so it is not the equivalent of working FT all year which I agree would be tough with a two year old.

You will be working FT 34 weeks per year and being a SAHM 18 weeks of the year. You will only be working FT 65% of the year. That's really not so bad.

Lots has happened in the past couple of days!

The (very) good news is that my Mum has suddenly announced that when she retires next year, she would like to give us £2000 a year towards the DC education!! We all sat down and did the sums and figured out that with this extra income, I got go back 4 days a week at 0.8. So still have one day a week with DD (not two but better than none!) and be able to send DS to the school. Obviously, I was over the moon...

So I rang the school to discuss my long term plans with senior management and they were less than enthusiastic. They said they didn't like the idea of me trying to change my hours just to suit my "family life" but worse, that there was no guarantee there'd be any more hours available when my boss retires as they may well "reorganise" the Department. I know this isn't as bad as it could be as they said there will be 0.5 position for me but it does through a rather large spanner in the works for what I thought was the Perfect Plan...Sigh

"They said they didn't like the idea of me trying to change my hours just to suit my "family life""

Er, they are a school - you think that they would be a little less surprised by this.

You dropped down your hours when your second child was born and when she's two you would like to increase them again. Not rocket science.

At my school, they ask everyone each year whether they would like to change their hours up or down for the next year. It would not faze them at all if a part-time member of staff wanted to increase hours. There would be no guarantees, if there were any conflicts then a full-time member of staff would have their timetable filled first (that wouldn't happen really happen at our school because we are small, so subject specialism is the most important thing).

I am surprised that your school was put out and gloomy at this stage.

I thought that it was an employment right for everyone to be able to request a change in hours.

From the school's side, it is reasonable for them to reorganise after a retirement, especially if they anticipate a shrinkage in numbers for the next couple of years. They really do need to look at the big picture.

I wonder if the answer would have been different if you didn't have children you were hoping to send to the school. It may not be the change in hours they are concerned with but more the level of fees subsidy you'd then be entitled to. It may depend on how affected they are by children being removed from the school. I know of schools where this is happening and at my ds's school they have put a freeze on capital expenditure to ensure that fee increases are kept to a minimum.

If they didn't want staff to enrol their children in the school, they wouldn't offer such generous fee remission.

Staff children in school is good for the school.

There's a right to request flexible working - once a year - (and no obligation to say yes) but you can't ask for more hours, after all, they have to pay more!

My comment about the economic situation still stands - can you afford the fees with your income only? Can you rely on your DH' salary - is he in a recession-proof job and can you rely on the contribution from your mother - after all savings income is down - has she done HER sums regarding her retirement? Sorry to be banging on about this but much better to go to state school and stay there than go to private school and have to leave because finances implode.

Have only read the OP but honestly, I think private primaries are totally unnecessary unless your DC are very socially insecure (or you suspect they are going to find academics very difficult and they will need extra help). I went to a very academic private secondary following a state primary (and NOT a good one at all), and you couldn't tell the difference between the intake at 11.

But, I swear, by 18 you could pick the ones who'd been private all the way - much more 'priviliged'/snobby. BUT don't feel guilty about your DD if you do go that route - mum's value to their children simply can't be measured in hours put in.

If you really want to go private then they will get far more value out of it at secondary level IMHO (which gives you time to save!). But its not essential then either...