Which do you think would be most beneficial to children....

[seeker]

....two working parents and a private education, or one working parent, a state education, and a parent at the school gate every morning and afternoon, a parent at every assembly, performance, match and parents evening, and around every afternoon/evening and every holiday. Discuss.

This is going to be a difficult question to have a sensible thread about because it involves two totally separate issues - private vs. state and SAHM vs. working mum.

My children are in state schools and I work full time, as does DH. There seem to be a lot of SAHM on MN, but when I looked up the stats on SAHP, only 1 in 8 children come from a household where all the adults in the household don't work. That 1 in 8 is going to include people who are not really SAHPs in the sense we mean it on MN - they are going to include people who are at home because of serious mental health problems and addictions that would make it impossible for them to work regardless of children, and teenage mums who have returned to school/college but are not working. So SAHPs in the true sense of the phrase are a sub-group within that 1 in 8 parents.

So I wonder who the majority are actually getting into this heated debates with. The world is now one of working mothers; that includes my doctor, my children's teachers, my colleagues, my librarian, my dentist, my newsagent, many of the taxi drivers and so on.

These debates are pointless because there is no real fear that working mothers or our daughters are going to have a narrow choice of careers or are going to have to live in a world where men dominate every profession and you can't see a female doctor if you want to. The world has changed.

I think as we don't know these SAHMs on the internet and I meet very view in real life, then the people we are really arguing with are our mothers' generation, who often did stay at home. I may be wrong, but do all the WOHMs who get involved in these threads have a lot of experience of SAHMs of their own generation?

For me personally, as soon as I was old enough, I went out to the library or with my friends after school because I found it incredibly claustrophobic being in a house with someone who had made my life into their job. Your 4 year old may want you at assembly, but does your 10, 12 or 14 year old want you around all the time? I certainly didn't.

I would say, regardless of whether your child is at private or state, as soon as it is possible you should teach them to use public transport or cycle to school and stop picking them up. Teach them independence.

It is all very well being a SAHM if you are like Bonsoir and have a life that is not about your kids, but all this hanging around at school mentioned in the OP is the kind of thing that I find worrying. Even my mother let me make my own way home from primary school.

That might have been worded somehat confusingly; what I meant was that 7 out of 8 children are in a household where all the adults work. The 1 in 8 live in a household where nobody works outside of the home or only 1 parent works outside of the home.

MillyR - are you sure about those figures? And do you have a link and a breakdown of those figures by age of the children?

I am pretty certain that if you look at the figures for families with pre-school children and then with primary school children that you will not find that 7/8 families have two FT working parents.

Milly - I suspect ( absolutely no evidence for this) that many SAHPs are concentrated in certain areas of affluence.
Certainly where we live and at DCs school there are far more than 1 in 8.

A quick count up of DS class tells me that of the Mums, 8 are SAHM, 4 work PT and 6 work full time.
Of the Dads all but two work full time. One is so rich he doesn't need to, the other is a SAHD while Mum works.
I suspect this is common where we are.

This will be completely different in other areas I suspect.

I didn't say both parents worked full time - lots of parents work part time, or work shifts and so on. I will try and find the figures again. I don't think they gave a break down of age, but I would suspect that overwhelmingly, SAHMS have young children - that is the time most women want to be at home.

Bonsoir, what is it about your DSS's school that has you so dead set against it?

I have opted for the state school/SAHM scenario and it remains to be seen if my decision is/was the right one.

It is so easy to be seduced by beautiful independent schools with their grand settings and I must admit to feeling a pang of something whilst attending our final Prep School concert last night .

The concert was well attended but I think that I was one of the more enthusiastic members of the audience. Hopefully my enthusiasm will stand me in good stead as a state school parent.

I suspect that the things we as parents value/admire about the independent sector school experience are not the same things that our DC's do.

Good/nice teachers feature highly on my DC's wish lists and I am confident that the state sector will provide these .

What use I will be to them as a SAHM over the next few years depends on how much effort I continue to put into the job.

Okay, it was Office of National Statistics. There are 2.2 million SAHPs. The .2 millon are SAHDs. So that is a bit less than 1 in 8 households with children in where there is a SAHP.

Just under half of all mothers of under 2 year old children are in employment. So the figure for SAHMs of older children must be a less than 1 in 8 to balance out the numbers who are at home in the early years.

If, as Litchick says, there are lots of SAHMs in affluent areas, then the whole private school thing is a bit of a red herring. There are presumably lots of SAHMs with privately educated children.

We opted for the latter. But it has meant that dh (particularly recently when his job has felt less secure) works a long day and misses the youngest two weekdays and quite often the eldest too.

It is impossible to answer this question objectively.

It all depends what the schools are like in your area, whether either parent wants to be a SAHP, and what support network you have of friends, close relatives near by.

Being a SAHM does not necessarily mean you can be there for every match as you may have other DC to pick up etc. Also, I know many SAHMs in the independent sector who are happy for their DCs to stay for after school activities until after 5.00pm every evening. Some prep schools keep going until 6.15pm .

People use the independent sector for many different reasons usually linked to the needs of their DCs. As a parent of fairly bright and interested DC I am hoping as a state school SAHM to be able to be there for them at the end of their school day (as opposed to at the end of my working one). This should allow the children to have more time to play together as well as giving me the chance to deal with any issues of the day before they are forgotten/assimilated.

The obvious deduction from the tone of this thread is that SAHM with DC in the private sector is some sort of panacea. It is not. Children still wet themselves because they haven't been allowed to go to the loo, they still come home with bruises because bigger kids have pulled them over and items of clothing still go missing. Oh and some kids even languish at the bottom of the class when their rightful place is much nearer the top.

So if you can be there for your DC at the end of their school day I think that can be of real value.

Milly - that might be the case.
SAHPs may be over represented within the independent school parents. Perhaps also they are over represented in the south east.
If generally there is a link between SAHPs and high income then it would seem likely.

thedolly - because they are bored and understimulated at school. This is particularly true of DSS2, who is top of his class by a wide margin and does visibly little work. And had 4 extra-curricular activities.

Possibly there is a link between SAHPs and very high incomes but also a link between SAHPS and very low incomes (children brought up in households where nobody works for example).

To be considered "employed" doesn't mean that you have to be working FT though, does it? PT working is a very real phenomenon in the UK, and lots of those "working parents" aren't going to be users of childcare ie are only going to be working during school hours or when their partner is at home to care for the children.

MillyR - I don't get your point

Are you saying that this debate isn't worth having because it affects so few of us?

One of the reasons more women are going out to work is because of an icreased financial burden on the home. One sure way of increasing the financial burden on the home is opting for private education. Thus the vicious circle is established.

Of course it's fine if no one wants an alternative but given that over 50% of people in the UK would like to privately educate their DC and over 70% of women would like to stay at home - I think there is a debate to be had, even if it is a hypothetical one.

I think it depends on the child tbh. My children went to state schools, non selective and not outstanding and I am a SAHM whilst dh works.
Ds gained with four top grade A levels and dd is predicted to do the same.
Dn a few days older than ds went to private school from age 3 whilst SIL and BIL worked full time. He left with a couple of D's in PE and geography.
Do I think DN would have fared better with a SAHM and a state education? Probably not, but I think he would have had a happier mum and the money spent on fees could have been used to enrich their lives and give him experiences that would have probably been just as beneficial as a couple of pretty poor A levels tbh.

I am a SAHM with a child at an International school. My dh was posted abroad and I had to give up my job to join him. Prior to that, dh was abroad and I was working full time, but still using private school as the care was wrap around and I could drop ds at 0750 for breakfast and pick him up at 1900 after prep.

I went back to work when ds was 6 months old until he was 10.5 when we moved. He is now 14, and still seems to like coming home and my being there. I resent at times the fact that my career is in all probability over for the foreseeable future, but there are advantages. If we moved back to UK, then I would have to work again to pay school fees and I don't at the moment.

On balance, I think it has been more beneficial to ds that I am home now for dealing with all the teenage angst and grunts and tantrums than when he was younger. I certainly wouldn't have the energy to deal with other people's teenagers all day, and my own in the evening.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. What you choose to do varies along with your circumstances and your family needs.

'Bored and understimulated' is not exclusive to the state sector I'm sure.

Is 4 extra-curricular activities too many/too few?

Bonsoir I find it ing that one of your primary motivations for spending the amount of time that you do with your DD is so that she will become bilingual. A direct inference from that is that if bilingualism were not the goal you would spend less time with your DD. Or would you just find another excuse for spending time with her .

I am seriously puzzled. Is this an attempt to assure us that you are not a satellite parent and should therefore be taken seriously?

Sorry for hijacking the thread but it didn't seem like anyone was listening anyway . FWIW the OP's query has been the biggest thing occupying my thoughts for the last few months, so the 'choice' is a very real one to some of us.

I do the same as Bonsoir in the sense that I want my kids to be perfectly bilingual, not just a bit bilingual, but 100%. The only way to achieve that is to spend as much time with them as possible, as I am the only person in this area who speaks English. So that is one major reason I stay at home.
It would make no sense in me working full-time in order to pay for a more prestigious school environment for the DC. I think in some cases, a SAHM can offer this kind of opportunity for their kids, the kind that money can't buy. Other examples are if the mother is talented in languages, art, music , or anything, really. They can transfer this knowledge to the child if the child is interested and this can be far more beneficial than having the mother WOHM.
I actually love being a SAHM at them moment (eldest is 3), but I think I'D also love being a WOHM too.
So, I think that a SAHM can be useful for the child's education and that paying for private education is not always the best option.

Not arguing Sakura as obviously it's great if you can pass on skills to your kids, but surely the most important part of being around is just that - ie you're there and solid and can see when they're upset, bored, tired, need a hug, etc. There's a lot to be said for kids flopping around at home and just having a relaxed time at home after a busy school day. I'm not talking tv necessarily here, just playing and doing their own thing without anyone telling them what to do. Just them knowing you're there is sometimes enough. fwiw, I'm a work at home mum, so am lucky to have the best of both worlds.

thedolly - I don't think you have any experience of bilingualism or transmitting two cultures to your children (and just how much work it is) so perhaps you would like to reconsider your emotive post?

Butis it that hard and time consuming Bonsir...genuine question here as have no idea.
I used to work in Bethnal Green and loads of kids were bilingual.

I have friends of various nationalities who are seriously attempting to bring their children up to be bilingual, none of whom I am sure would spend less time with their children if bilingualism wasn't an issue.

I spend time with my children because I love them. I do not want their sometimes far- reaching questions to go unanswered and I attempt to enrich their lives on many levels.

Transmitting two cultures to your DD really ought to be a pleasure and you don't strike me as someone who is afraid of hard work.

Your posts normally stike a chord with me Anna (or at least make me laugh ) but the one that we are now discussing seems somewhat dischordant. I can only assume you are having a particularly difficult week. You can not seriously mean that you would spend less time with your DD if it weren't for the whole bilingual thing. If that is true, I doubt that it really is time well spent. Don't let the whole BL thing become the focus of your relationship with your DD.

I am sorry if this offends you. I have no axe to grind. Friends?

The dolly, where did you get the statistic of 70% from? Even the daily mail, which loathes working mothers, only claims that 43% of mothers of babies want to be a SAHM.

I am not saying the debate is entirely irrelevant. My point is that when it turns into a heated debate, WOHMs seem to respond to the criticisms made of them. I am just saying they shouldn't do, because being a SAHM is a minority activity, particularly when the children are of school age. There really is no threat that mothers are going to be pushed back into the home or that the majority of the population are going to be judgemental and negative about our family lives.

So while it is an interesting debate for SAHMs to have amongst themselves, I really don't think it should bother WOHM. It is a bit like religious people, some of whom think it is terrible if a child is not brought up in a religious way. Why should I be bothered by a debate that most of society considers to be of limited relevance to contemporary society?

Litchick - who is Butis?