We had DCs in the same school for K-8, and then they went to different high schools.

It was great having them in the same school when younger . . . not only was it more convenient, but it was easier to as a family to make the greater school community an integral part of our lives back then. The latter wasn't as important in high school when DCs were more independent, but in the elementary and middle school years it was wonderful.

Anonymous wrote:Unless there are truly major learning needs/challenges, I think having the kids at the same school is pretty crucial for family dynamics for k-8. By high school you may need to split kids up and have them go to best fit but I truly think the upside for same school through MS outweighs benefits of splitting kids up.

Agreed. I'd just go a bit further and say having everyone at the same school should be the default, unless something further down the road prevents it. Having a school that really gets to know your family over many years can be a huge positive.

Privileged problems, indeed!

Anonymous wrote:Unless there are truly major learning needs/challenges, I think having the kids at the same school is pretty crucial for family dynamics for k-8. By high school you may need to split kids up and have them go to best fit but I truly think the upside for same school through MS outweighs benefits of splitting kids up.

+1. So many advantages for the entire family, including the kids, to have them all in one place and that will become clearer as they get older and you have busier schedules to manage.

Unless there are truly major learning needs/challenges, I think having the kids at the same school is pretty crucial for family dynamics for k-8. By high school you may need to split kids up and have them go to best fit but I truly think the upside for same school through MS outweighs benefits of splitting kids up.

Our kids attended the same private, which is actually closer than our zoned public. They played the same sport(different genders) and are close in age, so they shared many of the same teachers, etc. The oldest may have benefited from going to a more rigorous school, but she was accepted into all colleges that she applied to(with decent scholarships), so no complaints. They both would have went to UMD, but DD's first choice is stronger in her major and overall is a better fit(maybe not as diverse). So I'm happy with our decision.

They will be on the same schedule/holiday breaks, family time and travel outside of school is important to me. I also notice my kids have friendly competition and the older gives the younger pointers on classes and managing the workload, they have something to bond over.

We've done both over the years.
I always subscribed to the idea that each kid went to the school that was best for THEM, but in the end I think it's also huge for sibling bonding to go to the same place

Also would love to know what you think is stupid about my question.

I assure you I am not a troll.

Troll. No one is actually this stupid.

Forget the idea of a "better" school or "worse" school and focus on what each child needs. My kids have always been at different schools because my oldest needs more handholding and support (and less rigor) and my youngest needs a more stimulating curriculum where he's encouraged to work independently.

What we lose, in addition to more complicated logistics, is being all-in in one community where we are known as a family as opposed to just through each individual child.

Everyone should do what's right for them. Fair means getting what's right for each person, not equal.

My older child goes to a good but not top private school. My younger kid is still in preschool but getting MUCH better feedback from teachers than my older kid. So it seems like my younger kid would have a better shot at a better school. My question is - putting aside family logistics, are there benefits to the siblings to attend school together? Has anyone been faced with this situation and what did you do for your younger child?