Selective education, Kent's 11 plus and Grammar School system

I'm not stifling debate. Feel free. But do not feel free to tell me that my experience is wrong because this completely different set of circumstances! What, for example, is a "SM equivalent" school?

The urge to make the point again won .

' you can't have a correct view unless you have a DC in SM'.
Individual personal experience is important but should n't be used to stifle debate unless you are just interested in discussing it with people who have exactly your perspective?

Of course. Entirely your prerogative . But it would perhaps be good therefore if you didn't tell me that you know better than me about my lived experience?

Bertrand I have n't answered because I can predict your line of reasoning whichever way I respond (since this is a well-trodden path) and it has had little impact. By short circuiting it saves you wasting time and energy.

Thank you for acknowledging that I "came nearer" answering.

You, however, have not come anywhere near answering whether you live in a wholly selective area and have a child in a state school.

Bertrand I replied at 8.13. no you did n't. You came nearer to answering it this time
I repeat the question (which refers to what's best for an individual DC)
As I said what's worse -being regularly beaten or alternatively being excluded from being in the team because of competing with coached DCs

Out of all your arguments against SM (and of the Kent system I would n't disagree with some of them) this has to be the weakest.
Personally I think DCs gain from being in a team and if a SM gives that opportunity to them but a comprehensive does n't that is a plus not negative for the SMs.

What's needed in your local SMs is better school sports coaching to at least do the best they can as school teams. Outside individual coaching does n't help teamwork, look at the England football team .

I'm in Kent and I hate the system. Dd sits the test in September. She will practice some papers in the holidays but that's it. She's a bright kid who has always sat on the higher ability table and has always had excellent sat and cat test results, so she is genuinely suitable for selective education. I hare the fact that she may go to a different school to her best friends. I hate then fact that she may not pass but someone who has been taught the test will. In our school all the behavior is on the lower ability tables so one school has to deal with all that. Sucks, I would love to have the option of a good comprehensive instead.

Camel- if they did it that way they would have practically the same cohort!

"The barrier is the test. 50% of FSM children with level 5s in Kent did not apply for grammar schools. That is what needs to change."

What sort of numbers are we talking here?

"Selective schools don't select on the basis of sporting prowess. There is no reason why a non selective school should not win if their team is better."

Nope. They select on parental involvement, parental income and parental social class. Cunningly disguised as a series of "intelligence" tests!

Coincidentally, exactly the same parental demographic that has the time and/or energy and/or money and/or inclination to arrange extra curricular activities for their primary age children.........

camel

There are selective schools for most things, sport, academic, music, drama, dancing.
An academically selective school might not select on sporting or musical ability or vise versa.

I replied at 8.13.

To repeat. There is a difference between not making a team as an individual, and being at a school which is always beaten by the selective schools. You were told at 10 that you weren't good enough to go to the grammar- and then. for the rest of your school career you are repeatedly shown that the school you are at is not as good as the grammar school. What do you think that does to morale, aspiration, self esteem and social cohesion?

No I cross posted but since you have ignored the question in my previous post (second paragraph in the post before in case you missed it) I am happy not to follow down your track of ' you can't have a correct view unless you have a DC in SM'.

"Actually my DCs' school get regularly beaten by the SM equivalent schools they play football or other sports against. Quite rightly so since they are less good."

Doesn't really answer my question, though.....

Actually my DCs' school get regularly beaten by the SM equivalent schools they play football or other sports against. Quite rightly so since they are less good.

"It is not a SM vs grammar issue but any school vs sporty school."

Can I just check before I reply to that- do you live in a wholly selective area? And do you have children in state schools in said wholly selective area?

Bertrand less sporty independent schools get regularly beaten by other schools ditto grammar schools being beaten by other sporty schools.

It is not a SM vs grammar issue but any school vs sporty school.
As I said what's worse -being regularly beaten or alternatively being excluded from being in the team because of competing with coached DCs.

TootingJo makes a very good point about the social split. At the comp. we sent our daughter to it was like a "Tale of Two Cities" or some sort of social apartheid. It was the unhealthiest social structure I have ever witnessed. One school held all sorts of different pupils which should have been marvellously diverse but in reality it supported an extraordinary selected of marked sub cultures with very little overlap. It was utterly bizarre and extremely stressful for our daughter. It was possibly a London centric thing but it was shocking.

It is about priorities. My priority was to secure the best possibly education within my means for my children. That's what being a good parent is about. I can't change the system or the world but I can make sure my children get as much out of what exists as possible.

FWIW we sent our dd to a high performing sought after small cofe comprehensive that had a spectacular reputation. It had also had new management a couple of years before my daughter started. It went from having an incredible ethos to an ethos of "this is just a comprehensive" where nothing was done to deal with dreadful behaviour because those responsible for it were from deprived backgrounds and therefore allowances had to be made. That is what is wrong with the comprehensive system as I have seen it: it supports a culture of excuses.

We moved our daughter after Year 8 due to disruption and her increasing unhappiness. Only English and Maths were set. There was no setting for any other subjects except that later on the top half of the cohort did triple rather than double science.

What we saw was a system that supported the gradual sink to the lowest common denominator rather than a rise to the highest which surely would have been better for those with least support.

Our daughter would probably have got into a grammar school in Kent btw where it's the top 25%. She stood no chance for somewhere like Tiffin where it's probably the top 0.5% and which I question in the context of ethos nowadays because it has been infiltrated by a "Tiger Mummy" culture in a way that is quite extreme and cannot be healthy.