"school snobbery"

[dinkybinky]

I think it?s hysterical that some people think that if you child doesn?t attend a Grammar school or selective independent then they?re not academic. The level of ?school snobbery? that goes on is quite bewildering sometimes.

But at a decent comprehensive she will be in a class with other equally able children. My DD1 is in the accelerated class for A level maths, physics and chemistry. She is taught at a faster pace. Doesn't mean the remaining classes have to go to a seperate institution. Actually, she didn't start off in the fast track physics group. Her tutor suggested she move up after a few weeks as the pace in his class was a bit slow for her. That's the beauty of the comprehensive system.

My DDad is one of the cleverest men I know. He failed the 11+ 60 years ago because he went to a school where no-one passed the 11+. No-one was expected to pass the 11+, no-one expected to pass it. Not because they were all thick, but because they were poor south London boys and 'boys like them' didn't go to grammar school. They still don't.

If you think that raw natural talent is enough to get through through the 11+, you are deluded - as the need for tutoring illustrates. Essentially, it's a system which by design fails the poorest and those with least cultural capital. My dad HAD academic ability, in spades, but the test wasn't designed to recognise it. Had he been born in a different family, he'd have been at Oxbridge- no question.

On the evidence of this thread, we haven't come very far in 60 years.

You know you can, if you choose, tutor your own child. It is not a question of economics. You can get past papers for practice.

Many Grammars have tester questions free online. Many Grammars offer open days where children can get free tuition too. It is not expensive to tutor your child and allow then to experience the types of questions that come up.

However, unless your child has raw ability they can be tutored with an inch of their lives and they will not pass.

"Well, only if you think those tendencies can only be catered for in isolation."

The phrase that springs to mind when I read posts like LaQueen's about arty schools being 'right' for 'arty' children, and 'academic' schools being right for 'academic' children is

CHILD!   KNOW YOUR PLACE!

How are we to know about the potential of the average 11 year old? Many people are extremely adaptable and have complex personalities and talents which are not easily pidgeon-holed.

"seeker what really is the difference at taking a test at 10 or streaming by ability at 11?

Is it the concept of being at different schools that bothers you? I don't really get where you are coming from but would like to know."

Because there is them possibility of movement between sets. There is no possibility of movement if you are in a different school.

So actually LaQueen, it's actually about taking the bright kids away from the plebs, not about whether teachers in comprehensives can stimulate and stretch the brightest pupils.

Do you really think educating children in a system based on intellectual apartheid is good for the country as a whole? Do you not think it perpetuates the discrimination you have identified in the schools you've worked in?

Ok Laqueen, I'll try once more and try to speak slowly. Different people of different abilities can be educated at the same establishment. This is great because it enables true social mobility. I do not believe one size fits all because it doesn't but I do believe that children should be given more than one opportunity to prove that they have some academic ability.
It's also worth saying that not all children excel in all subjects. DD1 is talented in maths and science but in English not so much. Her English ability is almost certainly secondary modern standard and her maths and science is top set grammar standard. A comprehensive can fit around both.

"Yep, dinky they do...but, when my DD2 leaves the security of the top-set classroom and enters the school corridors and changing rooms and lunch-halls, I don't want her getting deried and mocked for her ability, I don't want her having her school bag pulled apart, or her blazer deliberately trashed to teach her a lesson for being smart."

Because it's only nasty, common children who do this sort of thing, there is no nastiness or bullying in grammar schools, oh, dear me no. Jesus wept.

Laqueen. In most cases it's not possible to transfer from secondary modern to grammar. You say it is in your area. It's not possible here. Even in your area it's only possible once a year. How is that fair?

LaQueen - that's disingenuous. It is much easier for children within a school to move between sets than it is for children to move schools. And most grammar schools are run as separate entities.

The grammar schools around my way are HEAVING (usually with children from all the private primaries....) and almost nobody joins beyond year 7.

It's difficult to make generalisations in a subject like this. It depends on the child and the place.
Comprehensives vary wildly. I have worked in state secondary schools in my area and there is not a cat in hell's chance I would release dd into these jungles. However in those schools there were pupils who got 10 A*s, they were very bright and resilient.

I've never encountered school snobbery amongst parents, just people desperately hoping they're making the right decision for their child. If I did encounter it, i would consider them to be loons an not give much credence to what they had to say anyway. I don't like in the South though or know many millionaires.

"Schooling should not be a competition amongst friends."

In the UK it ABSOLUTELY is about competition.

And the ones who win are the ones who have the most money to spend. On private schools or on tutoring and preparation for selective state schools.

There is NO denying this - the facts speak for themselves.

LaQueen. The difference is, if you segregate children at 10 and put them in different schools, that's it. No movement. No possibility for late developers, or mistakes. And in a comprehensive school, there is th possibility of movement.

But your more recent posts show your true position- you want your child kpt away from the hoi polloi. So it doesn't matter what I say, you have a vested interest in not accepting it.

seeker okay I get that and I do agree - but I just don't agree in abolition of grammar schools. It gave me opportunities that were not available at the only non selective comprehensive that I was attending.

I think the issue of 11+ is that parents often enter their children with the attitude of "you never know" and that is not the right thing to do, that is damaging for a child - to be made to sit an exam they haven't a hope of passing.

The thing is shag, children at Grammar School are exposed to Art,Music and Drama. They are actively encouraged to explore their talents. Cultural experiences outside of their normal environments are given.The ethos is one of exploration-as such is the academic mindset.

There are sets within Grammar schools too and the opportunity to move to sets that offer appropriate provision.

Grammar schools allow potential to be recognised.

"seeker okay I get that and I do agree - but I just don't agree in abolition of grammar schools. It gave me opportunities that were not available at the only non selective comprehensive that I was attending."

But why shouldn't all children have those opportunities, whatever they are?

seeker
You send your daughter to a GS - why did you send her if it wasn't to be with other bright children?