Better lifestyle - well not really that, more secure financial future. We are behind the 8 ball here and trying to catch up the best we can. We have lived on the edge and it is not fun. We would like to be able to take the children just on simple holidays to visit family. We want to have financially stable (mortgage paid off, money in the bank) by the time they hit uni age, as that is where we feel they will probably need the greatest level of financial support from us.
Sometimes it is not just a matter of the now, or the next few year, but 15+ years down the track. We always need to keep that future in mind.
Thankyou all so much for your thoughtful replies. It's given me a great deal to think about. TBH, I was surprised that the majority lean toward option B, mainly because I think I have generally been tending toward option A.
My argument to myself is that school is the place that they will spend the majority of their days throughout their childhood, and so the culture in which they are immersed is bound to have a huge impact on their imagination, intellect, relationships etc. DH and I will be who we will be. Yes, having to stretch ourselves financially and time-wise will leave us 'frazzled', as I put it, but I hope that we will still maintain our ethics and parenting style. A house is just a house, and whilst we may never afford a bigger one, this one will meet our children's basic needs. And there's nothing wrong with camping rather than trips to far-off places.
Reading your other ideas has given me pause to consider 'B' more though. Obviously, I was thinking about it, as I wrote this post, but I don't think I really considered the many valid points you have made. Fortunately, I have a while to make the ultimate decision and will then know more about what our budget looks like when I return to work.
I think if it was just a matter of private versus public school, I would have a clear preference for the local public school, especially for primary. I went to a mainstream private school and don't think it afforded me any great advantages, except perhaps for the final couple of years. In fact, the culture of the school really didn't suit who I was and I found it stifling and in many ways, quite damaging. The confusion really comes from my love of the Steiner ethic and culture. It's just an aside... a really big, expensive one, that the fees are what they are. I'm more than happy to accept that Steiner education may not suit my children's personalities and learning needs and will try and be as responsive to what suits them as possible. But in the mean time I have to make a decision based on what I hope might be best for them, and i really feel like this school might have 'it'.
Ginger... and someone else who asked (??!!), the school has long waiting lists and esentially I'd have to start from primary to ensure that they'd have a place. I understand that it's next-to impossible to get a place in the senior school without having been in the primary. I think that the Steiner style of education really suits young children and how I want their childhoods to be 'shaped'. I would have to re-assess when they're heading for secondary school as of course it would then depend on what they want in terms of academics, structure, subjects and teaching style.
Ummm... sorry, so utterly brain-dead, I'm not sure if I've covered everyone's comments and queries. Thanks again ladies. Lots to think about. xoxo
I personally think B. In my personal opinion (as an ex teacher and mother) I think it is the parent's job to 'shape' their children's childhood. Schools are only a new institution in our culture. In fact schools were only really made compulsory and state funded for all in Victorian times when Big Business Heads realised they could get a more compliant, punctual and efficient workforce if they could create institutions where children were taken away from the 'influence' of their parents and shaped to fit the schedules and restrictions of their factories and workplaces and not question authority etc. So in reality the softer, more natural approaches to education like Steiner and Montesorri were attempts by progressive people to try and return to the sort of gentle loving education that parents (in an ideal pre-industrial world!) would have given their children. By education I mean of course, life skills, personal skills and skills needed to work in their profession so not necessarily reading and writing. With today's emphasis and the necessity on academic skills things have changed but I think there is no reason an involved parent cannot provide these skills with the help of the internet and libraries.
In my experience as a teacher I believe that once a child has the tools to read and they are happy and confident because of a loving background and they have a sense of wonder and have been inspired then it doesn't matter whether they learn at home or school, they will do well. But nothing can replace the loving influence of a parent that has time for them and can help them on their learning journey.
That is just my pretty radical opinion. I seriously felt sad for all those children who I taught in many different schools, in two countries, who spent more time with me in a week than with their parents. Not that I was cruel or awful but I just couldn't love them or have as much time for them as their parents would have if given the chance. So if you want Steiner and can't afford it, then give them Steiner in the home. Your version of Steiner would be a hundred times better than from someone who can never know and love your kids like you do. Even if it is only in the afternoons after 'normal' state school. Your influence is so much more important I think.
Sorry full of punctuation mistakes as I am dealing with a climbing toddler and I can't go back to find them all...even so I hope my rambling makes sense!
BellyBelly Life Member - Love all your MCN friends
Jun 2004
The Festival State
3,008
i've just started my child at a public primary school, that has a Steiner stream. I've heard there are many dual stream primary schools in Melbourne, so could you consider one of those, instead of a pure Steiner school? It's a compromise, but i'm assuming, like it is for me, the fees are HEAPS less than $6k. Even the pure steiner schools here are WAY under $6k, more like $1k, last time i heard. Paying a few hundred, instead of a few thousand, is much more manageable. Fingers crossed for you that you can find a dual stream school near you, that has similar fees to ours.
Well I'm flying in the face of everyone else, because eldest DD has just started high school at a school that I believe strongly is absolutely the best place for her to go, despite our budget shortfall. In our case it's a little different because it's a catholic school so there is some room for negotiation of fees (which may also be an option at the Steiner school, it's worth asking about), but even so the next couple of years (esp while we're paying the same again in childcare for our youngest) will be tight tight tight. Partly it's an act of faith on my part that by committing to this for DD's highest good, that the universe will support this path, and the abundance needed to get through this time will arise as it is needed (which, LOL, is a very un-catholic way of thinking about it). We've never really had a lot of money to do activities, holidays, house renos etc, so - what difference will a few years more of living with less make?
I think the answers depend on the interpretation of the question - with the original post it my interpretation was that you were concerned about the lack of time with Option A (maybe frazzled gave a stronger impression than you meant), so came across like A)Steiner School vs B)More time with you/parents. So I said B.
Your reply highlighted money more - so if it was A)Steiner School vs B)More money in pocket - I would most likely choose A.
So based on the above if had to make a decision I would ignore the money aspect (unless A) would put you into severe financial hardship) - as think kids enjoy the simple things in life anyway and I would quantify the amount of extra time you will need to spend working/thinking about work to go option A (you still need time to go camping etc) - if is small like an hour a day then A) sounds good. Once it gets into multiple hours a day and not seeing kids before bedtime etc then for me then B starts sounding better.
But I guess there is an inherent relationship between money and free time if the number of hours you work is the key factor in how much you're able to increase your earning power.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks