"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.

Where I think your argument does teeter slightly seeker, is that places are so limited that a lot of children who "belong" in the grammar school won't have got places and will be the top set at the comp. No?

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

seeker that was your response to someone saying that grammar school catered for the top percentage of academic students.

Then you defend your choice - and it was a choice- to send your child to grammar school by saying "the high school is not geared up to cater for my child because the set in which she belongs is not there"

To me that stinks of being hypocritical.

"It is not hard to help your child familiarise themselves with the nature of the questions but like I said before if they haven't got the raw ability they are not going to pass."

So the fact that the children at grammar schools disproportionately come from professional families and private primaries is simply a reflection of the fact that middle-class children and the children of well-off people are MUCH more likely to be intellectually able than children from poorer or less educated families?

And actually thick, rich children having to be propped up all the way through grammar school isn't that much of a problem. The problem is that bright, untutored children are losing out to marginally less bright, heavily tutored kids.

"What is wrong with the high school that seekers child would have attended if not passed 11+."

It would be missing the brightest children, which means that the pace of learning would be slower in its top sets.

In areas where the brightest, best supported and most able children are being creamed off into grammars there are no truly comprehensive schools.

I think in some areas that might apply, hully. But round here 23-25% go to th grammar school. That's all but a tiny handful of the high achievers in the primary schools. The top set in the high school has very few level 5s at the beginning of year 7.

Of everyone I've ever heard of being bullied, and anyone I remember being bullied at school, none were bullied for being clever.

Are the reasons for bullying at grammar a bit more palatable or something? Or is there just never any?

Yes, LaQueen, it is shit! But the fact that the set isn't there in the high school/secondary moderns doesn't mean it isn't in comprehensive schools. It is.

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

seeker that was your response to someone saying that grammar school catered for the top percentage of academic students.

Then you defend your choice - and it was a choice- to send your child to grammar school by saying "the high school is not geared up to cater for my child because the set in which she belongs is not there"

To me that stinks of being hypocritical."

I really don't understand your point. I am not arguing against top sets. I am arguing against th necessity or desirability of those top sets being decided at 10, set in stone and being catered for in a different school.

Oh yes there was bullying at the grammar I attended ... Those who got in at the 13+ entry level were bullied for being "pikeys" by some of those who had come from private prep school.

However they were also snubbed by their ex-school mates from the secondary for being "snobs".

Really TOSN?

Both my kids have been called "boff" "geek" etc etc particularly ds who doesn't have the whiplash tongue of dd.

"""the high school is not geared up to cater for my child because the set in which she belongs is not there"

Hey, guess what seeker the maths set in which my DD2 belongs aint at my local comprehensive, either.

It's shit, isn't it

[struggles vair hard to repress smirk...fails....]"

Don't understand this, either. Are you saying that you have a proper comprehensive school, but your child is too clever for it?

I think dd1 has been called boff, possibly, but certainly not bullied! She's been called posh totty too. Tradge.

'Boff' at ours is just what you are if your rucksack straps are too short. At another school, it is if your polo shirt collar is outside your sweatshirt.

seeker it's hypocritical as it would be like someone spouting about how everyone should live a vegetarian lifestyle whilst tucking into steak.

No,wiley, it's like saying that everyone should be able to have a proper nourishing meal, whilst only having been offered a) a lentil or b) a steak yourself.

I've not read the whole thread but am so glad that we do not have the pressure of a grammar school system here - or even selective comps. There are three comps, all are equally as good (genuinely, which I know is rare) and non are over-subscribed.

Primaries likewise although a couple are starting to become full as more houses are built in the area.

It might be- if I was saying the grammar school system is fantastic and I am delighted with it, but you can't have it. What I am saying is that it is destructiv qnd divisive and it should be abolished for evryone.

But I assume if your primary school teacher friends felt that a child on table 2 was progressing well, or a child on table 1 had lost the way a bit, they would consider moving the tables?

There has certainly been movement up and down sets in the dds' school. And of course what is good is that you can be in the top set for Maths and the third for English, if appropriate.

"I have 2 friends who have taught in primary schools for the past 17 years...the top set is usually pretty static from the Yr 1."

Presumably both of these schools have pretty dismal VA scores?

There is another problem with sets: numbers. The top set at the grammar sit maths early and go on to do other maths exams. But th etop set is full. Parents with kids who could be in that set were there room, are incandescent that their dc are missing out.

No one is ever happy anywhere ever. Except maybe Ladakh or possibly Bhutan.

The top set simply can't be static from year 1. If it were it would save most of the people on this thread a lot of angst - and money on tutors. Laqueen - are you confident enough in your DD2s mathematical ability to let her sit the 11+ without tutoring?

Top groups are not static from Y1. They are not even sets, they are groups. The lower groups are usually comprised of the younger children and they will move up during this and following years.

Actually, CecilyP that is not true.

The older children statistically do better than younger children, because of the advantage they receive by being in the top group at a young age. They continue on in the top group because they get the extension work suitable for them. The younger children don't and statistically never catch up.

I disagree with the sweeping generalisaion that top sets are 'pretty static'. My DD went from second bottom set in Y1 to the top set of 90 children in Y4. Admittedly I gave her a leg up the ladder by doing some intensive maths drilling at home. Many of the children in the top sets at this young age I feel reflect the aspirations of the parent, rather then raw natural ability of the child.

It was true of my DS, OwedToAutumn; he did catch up. He was the youngest boy and second youngest child in P1 and bottom group for everything except reading. He was in the top group for maths by the middle of P2 and top group for writing some time before he left primary, although I'm not sure when. (Obviously, a neglectful parent by mumsnet standards. )