The Real School League Tables

The geography point again - why so many of the best results/best schools in the SE of England?

647 is a little low but if the pupils who go there do much better than they would have done at other schools then that's absolutely fine. These are just academic league tables.

I don't want to be outed. In fact the aspiration for the children is to be happy (mentally content) and not make career decisions they regret later and to pick work they delight in as much as I do and have happy balanced family lives. But why not do all that at a top 20 school? Mostp arents pick the best local school for their chidlren rather than the worst. I don't think i realy differ from anyone except I've children most who are bright enough to get into these schools without any pushing and happen to live near a lot of good day private schools.

If I wanted the chidlren to be posh I'd have them at very different schools. I'm not a social kind of person. There are posh boarding schools for the posh and thick and the posh and clever but I think boarding school can be psychologically damaging and you don't get as much chance to cuddle your children either if you send them away. I just had a normal middle class upbringing and went to a fee paying school. Like most people I've replicated that for my children. Very few parents awnt their chidlren to do worse, have 5% of their income, have harder lives, have none of the things they had as children. Most of us want our children to have what they are used to.

Wealth and intelligence? Not sure. Traditionally the British aristoracy were rich but very thick. Look at Princess Diana's A levels or indeed Prince Charles' or Harry's etc. IN other words you might get rich if you're clever - very bright child in sink schools leaves at 126 with no qualifications but builds up from his job as refuse collector big waste dispoal business and makes millions whereas refuse collector with IQ of 80 is unlikely to do that. But son of successful refuse collector who goes to leading school because father is now rich might still be a bit thick so might not make his own wealth. Also genetically IQs dumb down which is why two high IQ people won't always keep having chidlren with higher IQs although mroe likely to have IQs above average.

It's not just IQ though. I was interested in being successful may be because I'm an eldest child or just because it's fun. I'm not sure that's because of my IQ (and I didn't go to Oxbridge).

It's just the top 1000 or something. Individual chilren do well in lots of different schools. One advantage in moving to this bit of the SE is we have a choice of loads of those top schools. You would have thouight that would dilute their places but the schools still do well may be simply because people who are the best at whatever they do in some professional career congregate in London and SE.

It's a good point though that if the Government wants to even out unfairness at 18 the greatest unfairness is taht more girls get into university than boys as their A levels are better but boys then who do get in apparently get better degrees (just like the supposed studies that say children at rubbishy schools who get good A levels for where they are tend then to get better degrees). If the sex difference is much bigger than the rubbish schools difference the Government should be ironing that out as much as the 7% of private school pupils issue.The gender difference is much better. But they won't because they are politically motivated on the class issue.

I haven't criticised all state schools. 93% of schools are state. It's just that at the very top the league tables not that many state schools enter.

On bias against them in today's paper is the suggestion there should be more discrimination including against good state grammars for university entrance. Someone comments that if at univesrity level fewer boys get in because their A levels are worse which is true but in their degrees they do better, then surely there is just as much a case , much more in fact as the differences are massive compared to the class/school issue, then to be logical you would allow all boys in with lower grades but the Government isn't logical. It's just engaged in a class war.

Sofa, that's right. it's probably regional though. However there I bet no matter how rich you are if you've a son with the average 100 IQ you can't get him into Manchester Grammar school. We got our daughters in before 11+ and there was lots of competition at the younger end but I still think that was worth it as at 11+ you get the state school parents piling in too and I suspect even more competition but we're just talking about the top 20 schools here. There are plenty of private schools with places going begging. I bet for example the Catholic boarding schools would take just about all comers and plenty of others would too.

Our daughters didn't get into the same schools but very very similar ones so were not together right the way through not that it really mattered and in the end they said they thought that worked well but surely that shows you can't easily get in. I doubt it's any easier now than when they started.

And there will always be the hugely briliant child who will get in anywhere and those in the middle or may or may not.

But I think children aren't damaged by the schools in terms of pressure in the way the thread suggests. If you have brought up robust children with their own views then even if other children in their class are obssessive about work you're not going to damage yourself over that.

Is self harm caused by lack of choice? Gosh yes and the same with starving yourself. It's a power and plenty of teenage children feel powerless but that's as much to do with their internal psyche (so parents don't blame yourselves) as anything else and plenty of teenagers kill themselves at all schools. It's a very difficult life stage. But I don't think being in an academic environment which suits you and you enjoy classes and everyone works to the same level is going to make you cut yourself or starve yourself to death. Being in a school where most children are much less clever and will leave school with few exams might not give you the choices you'd get at the better school.

What the bigger good schools give you, I hope, is a sense that you can succeed at whatever your talents are. My children have got as much out of sport and music and other things from their schools as they have out of the academic side of things. Bigger good schools which might have 40 different hobby clubs are more likely to permit a child to find its niche than schools without those choices. If all the pupils find GCSEs pretty easy then you can get on with general educatnio, avoid the state school/state grammar sillness of doing 11 or 12 exams and instead get on with your music, sport, debating, hiking, school religious club or whatever else. In other words you're freed from exam pressure in a sense in these good schools.

And of course some children are never happy anywhere. I don't really think we need happiness lessons like at Wellington or wherever they have them but talking to chidlren about what makes for contentment, ensuring they eat foods which ensure long term health, getting them out in the open air, giving them a chance to meditate, pray in a school chapel, do yoga or sing or whatever might help them in the area of good mental health for life too.