If you can afford it, would you send your children to an independent school?(517 Posts)
This is a hypothetical question, and I would greatly appreciate your insight.
My question is based on this assumption: In England, if you want your children to have a better chance in life (great success, joining the elites, etc), a good independent school is a requirement. Of course, few have enough money to afford it.
But suppose you have enough money, would you send your children to an independent school? Or would a grammar or a comprehensive school be good enough?
why do you want grammar schools back?
are the 70% who fail the 11+
because they are weak at maths or English but brilliant at other things
not worth the same resources and opportunities?
and what about late developers?
or even early developers who turn out to be lazy (see other thread)?
why should they be segregated at 11?
After reading these two threads running side by side with each other, i feel depressed . The talk on the other thread about what normal salaries are is ridiculous . I deliberately stated salary and wealth figures that i thought were a bit silly, it turns out i was spot on with them. Thank god i have no children and my Niece is at a RG University and Nephew is L6 at a grammar school.
After reading these threads i believe its going to be a case for the vast majority of parents "You get what you are "Given, which for most be a Comprehensive school and the inconsistencies that provides. Most kids will be lucky to earn 20k Pa, Pro Rata during their working lives. Reading particularly the other thread about the "Elite" makes me want to weep for the majority of kids.
I was talking about the bright but lazy thread - and there's no salaries in there
and I'm not quite sure what your beef is.
Those who work hard will succeed, even in unconventional ways.
My client who digs holes on building sites nets over £28k a year, loves his job and will work till he breaks. The fact that he can barely read or write does not impact on the skill he has.
BUT he is making sure his kids work as hard as him but learn to read and write.
He'd never have even considered putting his kids into a selective school (he cannot fill out the form FFS) but if they are half as hard working as him and given wider opportunities they will do well.
Only a comp can give them opportunities in this day and age.
Here will go again Talkinpeace. I believe we can't save everyone 100% so lets try and give say 30% give them a chance to take on that "Rubbish" we have been reading on the other thread. Whether VR and NVR tests are fair at 11 who knows ,perhaps there should be a General Knowledge exam that have random questions that can't be tutored for. I understand about late developers myself being barely able to write at 15 years of age.
We need kids like the one who shot the BB Gun segregated from all kids, but will also need very bright kids from deprived areas educated among themselves. I have quoted the case of Hannah on the last episode of Educating Yorkshire, who has been brought down to average because of her surroundings and environment.
Talkinpeace. cross Threads. I was talking about the Super Education Thread.
I believe we can't save everyone 100% so lets try and give say 30% give them a chance
gosh, you really are a narrow minded unpleasant person who does not give a shit about the people in society who serve on the tills and checkouts and deliveries and provide the services that you take for granted.
read up on eugenics before I see you on another thread
I'm not sure I'm understanding you properly soul. I would appear that you are suggesting that we should concentrate on educating the top 30% only but as this is clearly unethical and ridiculous in the 21st century you must be trying to say something else just not making it very clear.
Talkinpeace. You are committed to comprehensive Education. Ok. then if
you lived in Hyde Tameside , would you send your Dc to Hyde technology
college? I know what the true answer to that. You would try and get your DD into Fairfield Girls and your Ds in Audenshaw School, if you could not get them in to the only two decent Comprehensives in the area, even you would be forced to go private at Hulme Grammar.
I am certainly not a unpleasant person , who if you have read my previous posts would know i had a terrible time in education, probably in lowest 10% academically if not lower.
Where have i said i don't give a shit about the other 70% of kids, obviously i would have been at the lower end of that group. Why would i not give a shit about myself.
So soul your not saying let's concentrate on providing the top 30% with a decent education what then are you trying to say?
I am saying we need selective education to help the top 30% .many of these pupils in inner city and deprived areas are underachieving due to poverty of aspiration and the surroundings. Many of these kids get C and D Grades where if the same kids were in more educationally advantageous circumstances would achieve A and B Grades.
As for Eugenics ... MY genes are " MANCHESTER COUNCIL ESTATE"......
Aspirational working Class,My family worked Bloody Hard after the War to get anywhere.
Ok I understand now but I do worry about the other 70%.
Just want to add that there's a big difference between a child in the top 30% and a child in the 0.2%.
Well my Niece is in the top 3-5% Nephew in the top 12-15%....OK your talking about the super bright ..Nothing to worry about , i am not about to replace Michael Gove as Education Minister. Comprehensive Education is here to stay..........
Yes comprehensives are here to stay as you can see from threads on here as they suit those on middle incomes who can escape the truly non-academic versions if they wish. They can also top up with tutoring if the local comp lets kids coast. (That's what we do.)
To be fair there seems to have been a turnaround in London schools from the days of ILEA. But in the other parts of the country it's hard to compete if you are from a school in a poor area. Educating Yorkshire showed a really caring school but not one where academics seemed to be high up the agenda.
Of course comprehensives are here to stay, if grammar schools were to come back 70% of parents would have children in the secondary modern and so would fight a return tooth and nail. No one ever says ' bring back secondary moderns'!
In the area I am from we were left with secondary moderns in all but name.
So the OP is not a journalist? I've only skimmed the first 5 pages here and she hasn't even entered the debate other than to say she isn't a journalist. Throws in a grenade then scarpers?
OP if you reading, you know all posts on MN are copyrighted?
Absolutely and totally.. I was born in a bedsit and my mum graduated to a council house. She worked hard and ended up with a really good job in a bank. I did not go to private school, in fact I went to a sh** school and now that I have a clear understanding of what we comp kids missed out on, I wonder how well we would have done if we'd been given the same chances. My son started in c of e and we took him out half way through year 2. Same old story, he didn't fit in the square peg they wanted him in and he was ignored and sidelined in favour of 'brighter' more well behaved kids. He was born on the 26th August and has been immature for his year group. He's settled and is stimulated, does sport EVERY DAY and has moral values and manners drummed into him, he is also constantly assessed academically with weekly maths and spelling tests. They are by no means perfect and have their own problems, many parents despair the termly 'Prizegiving's where the same prominent family names are rolled out year after year, then there's the obnoxious thickie who gets away with murder because he's fantastic at team sport. Sound familiar anyone??? Still annoying as this is its worth the life DS now has.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.