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

Gosh dandelioness that?s a bit controversial I await the responses from others with bated breath.

I think rich children overall would be brighter than poor children.One or both e parents are more likely to be in jobs which demand a higher level of intelligence and therefore the children are more likely to have 'intelligent' genes.
Now of course there will be many poor children who are very bright and many rich children who are thick as short planks.But overall using a large enough sample I would certainly expect a pattern whereby children from affluent backgrounds were more intelligent than those from poor backgrounds.

The sutton trust has published interesting analysis of entry to grammars.

It's worse than that- schools are expressly forbidden to prepare children for the 11+. And technically if it can proved that school did, their 11+ results could be declared null. Could you imagine the uproar if that happened?!

So unless rich children are intrinsically brighter than poor ones, there is something going on there.......

I think the phrase you are looking for is "there is something not going on there". I have never understood why LEA have Grammar schools and then fail to prepare Primary pupils for the entrance tests. Rich children are tutored and get in; poor children are left to flounder. Who is at fault -the parents or the LEA?

The average % of FSM at state grammars in Kent is, I think, 2.5. The average % of FSM in the school population in Kent is about 16.

So unless rich children are intrinsically brighter than poor ones, there is something going on there.......

I have similar issues, although dcs are younger, ds is v bright - effortlessly top in everything. dd is a late august birthday and struggles. We have decided to send them to different schools. ds would thrive in a highly accademic school and we are about to move him to one. We think dd might flounder in such an environment and needs a bit more support to come into her own. Therefore, we have decided to send her to an all girl's school. This also costs less than the school ds would go to. However, objectively, it is absolutely a better fit for dd and I am not sure that the dcs would be aware of the cost difference.

We were totally confident we had made the right decisions and then they both told us how much they liked being at the same school and being there for each other when they needed it. This has shaken us a bit I must say but I still think the decision is right.

Actually the point about putting them in for the test is important Soup. Possibly the most important thing about tales of tutoring etc. is that some parents are deterred by the perception of a 'middle-class' ethos at grammars and avoid them on social grounds. Very sad.

Hmm. I was simply saying the outcome is near enough the same where the intake is the same, independent or grammar.

That being said, it's bound to be complex, analysing intake.

I'd like to think MN is not representative of those who sit their children for grammars. I hope the majority don't hot-house, because if hot-housing disguised lack of appropriate ability then many children would go to the wall. And I don't think that happens en masse.

"By counterpart I meant selecting at the same level (or they're not really counterparts....)"

And I meant that state grammar often select at a higher level then the independents. This is simply because many parents have hot housed their children via private prep or intensive tutoring to get in and the selection criteria is simply the top 140 (or whatever the intake is). Certainly the top local independents (the "counterparts" you mention) select based on interview rather than just taking the top 140. They take the children they think will do well, not those who came top in the test. It is not completely comparable.

eg DS1 did not pass either of the state grammars he sat for. However, he was awarded a large academic scholarship for a comparable independent.

"Of course they can get in 'seeker', if their parents put them in for the test."

LOL. It's not as simple as that is it?

There.

What a crummy post I wrote.

By counterpart I meant selecting at the same level (or they're not really counterparts....).

Of course they can get in 'seeker', if their parents put them in for the test.

And state grammars do very well too. I suppose the difference is that theoretically a poor working class child could get into a state grammar. Unlikely but possible.

State grammars often select at a higher level to their independent counterparts.

I meant: where state grammars select at the same level, their success is almost exactly equal to their independent counterparts'.

Their success correlates almost exactly to their level of selectivity. And where state grammars select at the same level, their success is almost equal to their independent counterparts.

Their are huge variations in outcome in the independent sector just as there are between comprehensives and as there also are between grammars.

Bread has previously said which grammar she went to and it's at the top end of the range in terms of intake (and results).

There is an element of truth in the statement that they are "better because they are independent" though. DSs school only has to answer to itself in respect to how they spend the budget and can therefore respond to whatever their pupils need.

No more selective than the state grammars.

"Private schools are better because they are INDEPENDENT."

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

breadandbutterfly you are missing the point (and bashing the wrong people).

Private schools on the whole do tend to be better. They get better results, and their pupils get into better universities. Otherwise, why would people pay? It costs a fortune and they are not stupid, you know.

Private schools are better because they are INDEPENDENT. This has a huge and profound impact on (a favourite Labour word) - delivery. This means that the schools have to respond to the people paying them, who want a specific thing: the absolute best for their child. That is what they are paying for. In order to keep their income, private schools have to actively demonstrate that they care about their children and extract the very best from them.

As a result, private schools are more flexible and respond quicker to 'market requirements' (Nuffield report). State schools can still (because their supply source [pupils] is fixed, can still indulge in concepts and ideologies dear to their hearts. If you don't believe me, look at the results of the international league tables (independent of Labour massaging), which find British (state) education slipping further down the tables every year, whilst the gap between private schools and the state sector widen every year.

State schools in this country are socialist constructs: the provider is in charge (with a very powerful teacher's union who are concerned about their interests. This, too is human nature). That is the problem, and this is why BOTH political parties (Tony Blair, Lord Adonis and Michael Gove) have gone down the 'academies' route, which is to bring about independence from the LEA by stealth and bypass the powerful interest groups.

This has very little to do with 'posh' 'privilege' or otherwise. It is straight economics, and the hatred the state sector has for the private sector I think has a lot to do with how their left wing bullshit is shown up.

Where you do have a valid point, is that going to a state school did you no harm whatsoever. Well done. Your parents, by the way, probably did the right thing: the education system as it is structured is more suitable to and rewards girls (more girls are graduating now than boys and this is a worldwide phenomenon and a direct result of the feminisation of schools see left wing BS above. It takes little boys in Reception about 4 months to conclude that school is for girls).

Also, if you are of above average ability and have a fairly stable and loving home, it doesn't matter where you go to school you will succeed. But boys? Would benefit from the extra attention and pushing they get at private schools.

It's certainly true in our area that I'd be disadvantaging any child I sent to one of the indies rather than the local state grammar.

What's with this private school being better because it costs loads of dosh attitude? Shocked that there are parents or children who calculate the cost of what they buy for each child.

I'd send my child to the best school for them - in this case it may well be school 1 which happens to be indie - but because the dc wants to go there and it has good drama etc - not because it's expensive per se!

i say this as someone whose brothers went private when I went state - not till reading this thread had it occured to me that I might have been 'disadvantaged' by this. Ha ha.

He's won a place. You say bottom 20%, but that's not last. You put him in for the exam, he likes the school. No question about it, let him go.

My DS1 has in the past been overshadowed by DS2 when they've been at the same schools. But as someone once said to me when they were little; "this is life someone will always be cleverer than you". But being clever does not make you a better person! Or ultimately even more successful.