Will it be worth it in the end?

[hermanmunster]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... tarve.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[blessedmum]

why will she humiliate her family by putting that in a national newspaper with a picture of the lovely girls.

I can't condemn what she is doing as everyone has tomake their choices but I do not agree with telling the world. it should be their private business.

There are lots of people that sacrifice a lot to send their kids to independent schools rightly or wrongly but their decision should be kept within their homes.

[Ed's mum]

I read this article earlier this morning. I can understand the sentiment up to a point but I firmly believe that we should do our 'best' for each of our children. Now if she believes that 'best' is to be found in the independent sector then good for her. However, she knows that they aren't providing the same opportunities for her son and I find that very difficult to accept. Yes, each child is an individual and should be given what is best for them, but that's not what has happened. They simply cannot afford to do it for their third child.
There is also the argument that using up all of the 'spare' household income to pay for fees at the expense of food, clothes, holidays etc must be hard for the children (especially the son!) I say this from experience both when I was a child and now that my children are privately educated. It's exceptionally difficult for children to mingle with people who can afford luxuries but to come home and not have the same sorts of experiences and I don't just refer to luxuries: they may not have even some of the basics!
As for this particular family, it seems impossible that they will manage to fund their children through the whole school process; they have quite a few years to go and their finances don't appear to be large enough. Hmm, sounds familiar.
Furthermore, I do wonder why on earth she has made their business so public. Is she hoping for a philanthropist to offer to help?

[capers123]

Surrey no longer has Grammars. However, in our area, there seems to be no difference between children who were in private school and those who were in state schools when they enter Y7 Grammar. Question is, is it worth paying out the fees for a bright child, when they're likely to end up in the same place? The only justification I can see for it would be if the child needed a 'boost' to be able to pass the 11+.

Our two were at nursery attached to a private school (we'd been recommended it by the health visitor as one that would keep a bright child occupied). When they transferred to reception, most of the children went to various state primaries, a couple stayed at the private and a couple of others went to another local private. I said to one of the other mums (whose children were also off to state sector) "See you at the local grammar then".

Sure enough, all the children I'd earmarked as bright ended up at the local grammar (bar one whose parents I think had had enough of children at home & sent her off boarding). Seven out of ten families didn't fork out school fees, the other three did.

The children are all back together again, still friends, and there is no difference in ability or knowledge between them. So was the cost of private education worth it for those three families?

[Snowdrops]

What a stupid, stupid woman.

I too believe in doing my best for my children, but not at the expense of everyone suffering to that extent. By that I mean putting yourselves in sooooooo much debt - oh, reminds me of the situation the whole country's in now, and this sort of attitude put us there, they can't afford it, full stop.

Will their son thank them years down the line to know state was 'good enough' for him? Will he be pleased she couldn't be bothered to take a few minutes each day to hear him read? Heck, he might not even be falling behind if they did that.

I'm sure all three children would rather one or both parents took a few minutes each day to enforce their school work than any of them attending private school.

As has been said, sooner or later (rather sooner from the sounds of it) they will have to stop - what then?

[mike1880]

The obvious reason why she's done it is because she's a writer and she needs the money; presumably she's reached an absolute pit of desperation to parade her family in public in this way.

I think it's time she took a step back and took a long hard look at what she's doing to her family, and especially her son who is suffering all the hardships and receiving none of the rewards.

Mike

[hermanmunster]

remember a friend talking to me about some people moaning about boarding fees.....

She went on to say quite firmly that one has to cut one's cloth etc and chose day schools or state schools ... Interesting as I presumed she was quite wealthy - master of the hunt etc but investments has gone awry and hence sensible decisions had to be made. Kids ultimately benefited from interested parents.

[Snowdrops]

Exactly!! She was sensible, unlike some.

It's quite one thing to stretch yourself for things and quite another to put yourself (and family) into so much debt.

[marigold]

I have just googled the stupid woman.
Only in August she wrote an article about the trials and tribulations of having an au pair, not that poor then. She also has another daughter aged one, not too poor to have another baby then either. I suspect there is poor and poor and she is definitely on the side of saving money by not buying her loo paper in M and S rather than sitting around a candle in an unheated house which is my version.

[Snowdrops]

............... and another thing (oops, didn't know it was soap box day today )

Why such an expensive school? £8,000 per term? I hope they have gold taps there at the very least.