Dilemma... 'more average' sibling to follow super-bright brother to same school, or somewhere else, with a chance to 'shine'??

If he's passed the entrance exam for the 1st school then in my opinion he's good enough to go.

No matter how much you 'dress up' a decision to send him to another school as being in his best interests he'll always feel that you didn't think he was good enough for the first school. His results should tell you otherwise. So what that he was in the bottom 20% - a lot of those 'better' than him will be almost a year older in academic terms. You say yourself that he has 'come on' in the last 12 months and going on my experience I'd be prepared to bet that this improvement will continue. Have you asked him what he wants to do.

I was in a similar situation to you in that my eldest (born at the end of october) was always top of the class, her sister (an august birthday) most definitely wasn't. I can't deny that there weren't comparisons made between the two by teachers who should have known better, but there was only once that I had cause to regret the decision to send her to the same school and that was when she overheard all the complimentary comments being made about her sister when she came along to a parents night and remarked that no-one had ever said things like that about her, nor would they.

I'll never know whether those comments spurred her on or whether she just caught up age wise with others in her year but what I can tell you is that after a pretty average set of GSCE's (her words not mine) she ended up like her sister with the highest grades at 'A' level, a 1st class degree and a further professional qualification.

"Would you like me to c and p?"
Im obviously not clever because I dont know what that means?

As anyone who breeds horses will cheerfully testify two Derby winners don't sadly breed another Derby winner. It is also the same with humans. Secondly you may own a Derby winner but if you never race it you wont know. Just because your a road sweeper doesn't mean your not clever maybe you were never given the right chances in life. We also know plenty of Oxbridge grads many with 1sts and successful jobs but their children are not necessarily of the same calibre. Life is thankfully just not that black and white.
The independent sector frequently has much higher expectations of its pupils and of course many parents are forking out over £30 000PA and they too have high expectations of children. The culture at my DS2 schoolis that of achieving A*s. From the moment they walk in the door this ethos pervades. I suspect some of these would cruise in the state sector and perhaps not achieve such good grades.

I know seeker you are anti independent ed. and I can see it from your point of view because it is unfair but then life is unfair. I personally would like all state ed to be universally of a high standard as offered to my DS1 and surely high expectations cost nothing.

It isn't stupid to think that intelligent parents tend to produce intelligent children. But you said that rich parents are more likely to produce intelligent children. Would you like me to c and p?

seeker why is it stupid to think that intelligent parents are likely to create intelligent children.

Didn't finish that sentence (shows how poor i am lol) imtelligent parents create intelligent children

Stickin my neck out here. School 2.
I think the need to not be identified with his shiny older brother is probably massive for him.
And, about the resentment thing.
I went to a state grammar, my other 3 siblings went to private schools. I never resented my parents for that decision. In my case it was a financial thing - I was a late 4th child - but I've been considering doing this in reverse with my dds, sending the 2nd one to an independent - she's very academic and eccentric and hates boys and also missed a year of school for illness - whilst my first is generally doing great at a state comp which is very sporty like her, and getting lots of support with her (expensive) interests. Kids are different and have different needs, and treating them the same doesn't seem right to me. As long as it all evens out in terms of their NEEDS being met.
You can spend the money you save on drama and music coaching and let him be independent from his brother.
If it's a disaster, coach him for 13+ entrance.

seeker I don't often say this, but I have to agree with you there.

Yes- people's levels of intelligence differs. But the assertion that rich children are intrinsically more intelligent than poor children is breathtakingly stupid and offensive.

Seeker/gardener -I acould never have been the next Mozart or the next Usain Bolt no matter what my early experiences.I just was not born with the right genes.same with intelligence.

Well you've certainly not been posting on the things I've been reading. Its the fact that you are so "inconspicuous and self effacing" that makes your postings such value. There nothing like a good debate!

Really? You must just have not noticed me. I'm so inconspicuous and self effacing it's easily done............!

You've been very quiet for a while seeker MN has been boring without you!

Phew!

No of course I dont.
"The deprived child is shoved in a push chair and driven around the shops at speed facing away from mother with bottle of ribena in hand, much more than a middle class child. The family of the middle class child speaks in grammatically correct sentences. Then we get onto nutrition etc etc.
This is a gross and offensive generalization. I work with children from a huge variety of backgrounds and there are good parents and bad parents from all walks of life. We have a high number of parents from "deprived" background and also those with learning difficulties all are genuinely trying to do the best thing for thier children often in almost impossible circumstances.

Happygqrdener- you don't think rich kids are cleverer than poor kids, do you? Please tell me you don't!

dandelioness told you! I'm sure there will be more to come.

"It is an absolute tragedy that for two children of equal aptitude, by the time they are 4, the child born to the 'middle class' family is already ahead and the deprived child will NEVER catch up. This is a fact that has ministers wringing their hands."

Nobody denies this. But the key is "equal aptitude" Dandelionss, you are saying that children from these diverse background a not going to be or equal aptitude, because rich children are innately cleverer than poor ones. That is why your post was stupid and ignorant.

Dandelion you state a very sad fact, although a little bit clumsily (!).

It is an absolute tragedy that for two children of equal aptitude, by the time they are 4, the child born to the 'middle class' family is already ahead and the deprived child will NEVER catch up. This is a fact that has ministers wringing their hands.

(This is the basis of SureStart, playgroups and reception at 4. To try and intervene early to stop this).

The reasons:

The middle class child is surrounded by books, and is read good night stories from an early age. The middle class child is given more 'face time' with mother/eye contact and the babbling sounds are repeated back as words. The deprived child is shoved in a push chair and driven around the shops at speed facing away from mother with bottle of ribena in hand, much more than a middle class child. The family of the middle class child speaks in grammatically correct sentences. Then we get onto nutrition etc etc.

All these things encourage brain connections to develop.

Sad, sad facts.

Another amazing fact: if you want to find clever deprived children? Look in 'borstals'.

"No they don't. They do better because they are selective. Even the non selective select on class and wealth."

There are many thick 'class/wealth' kids out there, and there are schools that cater for 'non-academic' posy, rosy and katy. These schools - all of them - work because they are INDEPENDENT of any centralised control. The state, despite it's good intentions, is inherently wasteful and inefficient, and should not be in charge of running a tap.

What is your problem with selection? You are showing your ideology here. Just because YOU believe it to be a bad thing, is it a bad thing?

In your ideology, how do you explain the towering economy of Germany (education entirely based on SELECTION)? And that of Holland? And even, the schools of the former USSR!

The comprehensive education system of the UK system DOESN'T WORK and seriously needs to be dismantled. It would sound the death knell of private schools. I for one would be thrilled.

How is stupid and ignorant? What do you disagree with?

1. do you think the average vet, doctor, barrister, architect accountant has more academic intelligence than the average manual worker

2. do you not believe that intelligence is a trait which can be inherited?

I don't think it's anything to do with being anti independent school- why on earth should it be? It was just a stupid and ignorant comment. I am assuming that once she has seen it written down in black and White, dandelionss will realise that. Unless she is very poor, obviously.....

You can reiterate that to your heart?s content I'll still very surprised if your comments don?t bring the wrath of half of MN down on your head! Especially the anti independent ed. brigade.

Ha ha Before they arrive Happy i would just like to reiterate there will be exceptions to the rule