What would you choose? Top private school or superselective grammar?

Ha! You say "You shouldn't take your definitions of socialism from the Daily mail. Or, indeed, the Labour Party." and then proceed to mis-define Conservative policy.

Conservatives like social mobility, they like self-made men and women. DC said in 2007 "When it comes to encouraging excellence, of course it?s true that grammar schools can provide a ladder of opportunity for some ? but far too few. We need to be the party of aspiration and opportunity for all. With Gordon Brown as our opponent, we can claim that vital territory. He still believes in a know-your-place society where state largesse, not personal responsibility, determine your future. That?s not the Conservative approach, and that?s why we?re doing the serious thinking about how we produce an education reform plan that actually works." That reform plan includes Free Schools where communities can create the schools they want not the schools that the State gives them.

Neither the Conservatives nor Labour have expanded nor contracted the Grammar school system. They know that it is too much of a hot potato that cuts across party lines.

Abitwobbly - not sure I understand your post fully eg what you mean by 'get the vapours' etc. But you seem to be agreeing (?) with my point that a system which educates pupils based on ability not their parents' wealth ie a meritocracy is very much a part of socialist thinking traditionally - if the British Socialist Party, whoever they may be, wishes to diverge from the USSR on this one, they may do so, but that is not the only or traditional socialist view.

You may have noticed, purits, that the Tories haven't exactly been rushing to bring back grammar schools either - that is because they allow and facilitate social mobility which the Tories hate.

Abitwobbly there's a possibility that private schools generally outperform state schools for more complex reasons than that.

Abitwobbly on what do you base your statement that 'private schools are heavily discriminated against' by Oxford and Cambridge? You present it as fact.

You have to treat them as individuals, you don't owe anyone thousands, knock that out of them right away.
My youngest was born by IVF does that mean he inherits £6k less ?

I have five, the eldest two are at a grammar - 10 mins walk from home, the third at a very academic independent school. the youngest two are primary. We couldnt afford fees for all of them but went independent as my DD is bright but dyslexic and wouldnt have a mission in 11 plus because of this. the independent school is a half hour bus ride so she has a long day
tbh the independent school wins hands down for my DD with its superb range of extra curricular and non academic stuff and nurturing her self esteem. My boys are happy at the grammar, stretched enough i think but its not a patch on the independent school and there is a defnite ability to do the bare minimum and opt out of sport etc which the independent schoo ldoesnt accept and is to the benefit of the pupils. But Im uneasy about the fairness of only education one privately and justify it because she had a specific learning difficulty. my eldest two constantly remind me of the tens of thousands of pounds i will 'owe' them - we try to even it out by making sure they go on all the school trips - ones been skiing and ones been to canada on a music tour this year.

Breadandbutterfly it is not the socialists who have the vapours about education: the USSR streamed mightily and gave able students in maths and science privileges and investment other students didn't get: quite rightly so.

Similarly, the Dutch and the Germans stream their pupils into 3 abililty groups. Academic, technical and vocational.

The people who ruin get the vapours about 'equality' in this country are the stupid class-obsessed morons. They and their ideology have caused huge damage to at least 3 generations of British children now.

May Michael Gove carry on and complete the work of Andrew Adonis and Tony Blair and prize - AT LAST - education in this country out of the hands of the LEAs and the teachers unions.

It is no coincidence at all that private schools outperform the state sector. Not because they are 'privileged', but because they are INDEPENDENT.

Abitwobbly I thought universities regarded grammars in the same light as private schools.

I would go for SS grammar.

Why? Because they are still classified as 'State' at university entrance level. If you are thinking about Oxbridge etc. The private schools are really discriminated against here.

Sorry then goldie. Mine was intended to be general too. But the fixation on top unis when DCs are still young is very prevalent here, and scary.

Are there lots of grammar schools in your area?

It's just I would disagree with Thea where I live. As there are only one or two grammar schools, although excellent, they will take the vast majority from their own area, so the private schools take equally clever people, just who live further out of catchment.

Obviously, if there are quite a few grammars around you, this wouldn't apply.

The 11+ can be a horror even with very able children IMO. The amount of private tutoringthat goes on, and the massive amount of competition for too few places at a super selective can and does have an effect, even on very able children.

Blimey goldie, 'achieving highly at a top university'! No pressure there!

I've just re-read your original post: there are a lot of superlatives - top this, top that. Your DD is only Y6 and you're already turning your mind to 'top' universities. It may be telling that you refer to the 'horror' of the 11+ too. It isn't a horror, surely, if a child is naturally able?

When a student does get to a 'top' university there can be good sense in drilling into them that they should relax - the class of degree is less precious than the three years of education which goes before. They should aim to be good enough but should try not to spoil their time there by striving for more.

The Socialist Party's website specifically says "The Socialist Party believes in comprehensive education."

'Enviably charmed' admittedly means different things to different people. I think, if we are talking about the very best/top independent schools, then yes, the broad education a child receives here will be better than the average grammar school.

Good connections may offer a small advantage and again IMO are the reason many mistakenly think people opt for great independent schools over grammars etc. Perhaps in the 60s, 70s & previously the 'old school tie' network guaranteed a job at Lloyds or as an investment banker but today it's much more meritocratic.

It depends what you mean by 'enviably charmed'. If your priority for your kids is that they make loads of good 'connections', then you might be right. Astonishingly, some people actually choose a school because of the education it provides rather than the number of names you are able to drop at dinner parties.

I agree with Claig's earlier comments as unpalatable as they may seem.

Many won't have stepped inside the best independent schools in the country and will have no experience of how they operate and the often subtle and insidious advantages they can confer. IMO these last long after school days have finished. Many more are envious so choose not to believe or notice these differences. Although there's the stereotype of the public school drop out, I believe many who leave the best independent schools will go on to have enviably charmed lives, IMO many more than those who've been at grammar or at state schools.

That was aimed at purits' comment above, by the way.

Eh? What's Tory about that? 'To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability' is the basis of socialism - it's a complete myth that socialism = the same for everyone. It means giving the right thing to match that individual's needs and in return, them contributing what they are able to. Not sure how that could be any clearer.

Or, to give a specific example, I have cousins who grew up under communism in E Germany. In their classes, the top 2 were chosen as the 'university stream' and sent to special classes, top unis etc. Of my 4 cousins, 3 got into this stream and are now a vet, a doctor and a research scientit respectively. The fourth didn't, and was offered various options - he chose to train as a train driver, which he did until the fall of communism when he retrained as a car mechanic and now owns his own garage and makes more money than all the other 3! My point being that even under an extreme left-wing government, an extreme version of meritocracy was in operation - there certainly was not a comprehensive system - far from it.

You shouldn't take your definitions of socialism from the Daily mail. Or, indeed, the Labour Party.

We were in this exact situation 2yrs ago with our youngest.

We chose the super selective grammar after much deliberation. Our reasons were as follows:

Given that all the brightest kids sit for grammars, if they get a place at both they naturally generally take the free place- therefore the fee paying schools take the not quite so academically able cohort as a rule. Fortunately having elder 2 kids already in the grammar schools we were very aware of how things worked and that it was the best place for dd2.

The school dd2 got the part fees scholarship for is excellent BUT part of the bursary contract was to sign up that we would keep her there till 18. If not they could claim the money back. We felt being tied to the school long term want ideal- SE might want an a level choice they didn't offer for instance.

In your situation I would send her o te grammar if she is happy with that option. Save your money. If your next is able but a grammar uncertainty the it's likely she/he is the one to pay to educate tbh. That was certainly our plan with each- our local comps are ok but cater wll for lower ability BTEC type kids. Those aiming for 10x A-C grades at GCSE weren't well accommodated ( those aiming for A-A* across the board had already been skimmed off into the grammars).

Maybe my kids aren't all that bright really but they're not bored at all. Lots if non academic stuff going on etc. mind you eldest now at uni with A*x3 and Ax1 at A2 so not too shabby grades ( and she want offered a scholarship at 11+ just a place at the inde school lol!)

"Plus the grammar school ethos matches my own personal politics better. Though if you are Tory you might feel right at home in the private school."

Grammar schools are about meritocracy: you can't get more Tory than that!

I don't think it is possible for anyone to really answer your question, OP, just because all grammar schools are not identical nor all private schools. Some grammar schools (eg my dd's) are very good at stretching the most able, providing a wide range of extra-curricular activities etc. Some are less so. Likewise, some top private schools provide a particularly high standard of education, others don't. All those arguing about 'grammar schools' or 'private schools' above are only basing their judgement on their knowledge of specific local schools. Without knowing the 2 specific schools you refer to, none of us can compare them and really give you a definitive answer.

As the mother of 3, with the eldest at grammar (private wasn't an option for us financially but i prefer state anyway), i would have been wary of giving eldest an education that I struggled to afford and couldn't offer the other two. As others have said, this will allow you to have the cash to pay for all the other activities/support for all 3 not only to benefit your eldest.

I think there are some valid generalisations that can be made about grammar v private though - whilst one can't generalise on the academic attainment, it is possible to generalise in some areas that may help to clarify your decision-making process. Firstly, grammar schools are comprised of people who get in on merit only not cash, so they tend to have a different social mix and different values. Your dd is less likely to be surrounded by kids entirely from v wealthy homes, so less likely to have huge pressure about living in the 'right' type of house, driving the 'right' car and crucially for teenagers, wearing the 'right' clothes (well, that may still happen, but the 'right clothes may be from Atop Shop, say, rather than Armani or something). I would hate to be the poorest child in a school. Plus the grammar school ethos matches my own personal politics better. Though if you are Tory you might feel right at home in the private school.

claig has a point, to a degree, in that I think private schools probably are slightly better at instilling confidence, and yes, more of your dd's friends there would be likely to be loaded and possibly useful connections in later life. But does that matter to you?

Other considerations - grammar schools do NOT charge fees of any descriptions and are not allowed to, contrary to what is stated above. They are allowed to ask for voluntary donations and they are just that - at my dd's school the head is always moaning that only 30% of parents pay the charge. Plus university admissions are probably similar for identical candidates - but top private schools probably push more of their pupils to apply for better unis in the first place, whereas at grammars the pupils are maybe less likely to apply (the confidence thing again? or different attitudes from the school or parents?).

So lots to consider - for an accurate answer you'd need to name the schools! Or better still, speak to as many parent/kid at these schools as possible and see what they think.