"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.

That's a bit disingenuous though, as we don't sit classes of year 6s down to take a test in music, art or athletics and then take the minority who do well and educate them separately.

*it's certainly an interesting, original and relevant point that women should get out there and earn school fees or else they are morally reprehensible, and that's a point of view I'd like to see expressed more

My husband pays the school fees. They are his daughters too.

I think it's fabulous that Old Etonians run the country and the system and are doing so much to improve schools for poor people by getting rid of the scum. Bless them. Gawd bless our education system and tradition and her Madge.

"seeker 75% of 10 years are not told they are failures. They have simply failed an academic test. That doesn't make them failures as people, or will make them fail to have a life, or career."

Yep- the average 10 year old who is told she has failed a test while her friend passed it so they are going to different schools is really going to understand that distinction......

"Frustrated and irritated trying to choose a sixth form, ta! WHy don't you all come and talk to me about that, instead? "

Ooh- I've got loads of opinopnsnon that too. Have you got a thread?

Wordfactory- it's not just the punctuation, though. She's more reasonable and less rude sometimes. Is that a function of the divice she's using too?

Well yes, they are, but that would be more at their own instigation, wouldn't it? I think it's a bit different.

You want your dd to pass - so would I, in your situation! And you want her to pass because you think it matters where she is at school between 11 and 18 - as do I, in fact. But then to say, oh it's not really about passing and failing, everyone's good at something and they might be good at something else so they won't mind failing and going to the Other school... that doesn't ring quite right.

So the ones who pass should not be given an education appropriate to their ability so as not to offend the sensibilities of others.That is just ridiculous!

seeker - yep, a thread in secondary education. Come and opinionate, I fear I'm being unreasonable and need telling!

Yeah, I see what you're saying, LaQ: I still disagree that it's quite the non-event you're suggesting. You want her to pass, you don't want her going to the other school - that's probably the same for quite a lot of other people, who will indeed mind quite a lot if their child doesn't pass, as will the child.

People who support grammar schools just can't allow themselves to accept that there's a downside. If they did, the whole edifice would collapse around their ears. Because nobody could truly believe that irrevocably sorting children in this way at the age of 10 is a good idea if the allowed themselves to think about it properly.

I think a lot of parents would like the very brightest children to be dumbed down slightly

Not at all, and I'd have something to say about it I felt that was happening to dd - I just think they can be not-dumbed-down without being educated in isolation.

"So the ones who pass should not be given an education appropriate to their ability so as not to offend the sensibilities of others.That is just ridiculous!"

It would be completely ridiculous. Good thing nobody's suggesting that, isn't it?

Actaully I can understand the snobbery with Grammar schools and Slective independents.

It?s not fair to say that DC in bog standard sate comprehensive aren't academic - many are and have to work harder to achieve same results due to fewer resources and other issue.

However the school snobbery thing is ridiculous in my current area. All state primaries and secondary?s ? none of the secondary?s are brilliant the very best is worst than my old bog standard comprehensive. The amount of snobbery about where you get your DC in and what then is inferred about your family is unbelievable.

I don't think that's true Seeker. I support Grammar schools, as you know, but I'm fully prepared to accept there are downsides to the systems that are used. I also happen to think those downsides are worth putting up with so that children suited to a grammar education can have it.

There are downsides to a fully comprehensive system too. I could just as easily say that those who are against the grammar system can't see any downsides to comprehensives. But they are there, and are just as detrimental to some children as failing the 11+ is to others.

I send my DCs to private prep. This is not a judgement that NO state school is good enough for them. It is a judgement that the only school that they woudl realistically get in to based on where we live is not good enough for them when we have other options. I would love to be in catchment for a state primary similar to the one I went to. The school they go to is great in some ways and a compromise in other ways (e.g. lack of social diversity). We could have moved, but that would have involved other compromises (in terms of where we live), and overall we feel we have gone for the "right" compromise. I certainly think there are academic kids in State (non-grammar) schools (I know or am related to several). Of course there are. Just as there are non-acadmic kids in (some) private schools.

The thing about the 11 + is it fantastic if you pass it - but detrimental if you don't.

This might change if wider perceptions and all the baggage that went with the system could be changed.

At least with the comprehensive system it?s not such a cliff ? streaming in comprehensives means that DC are often taught with people of similar abilities and it can allow for late development.

It seems to me that one of the downsides of grammar schools is that it presupposes we still live in an industrial age where the majority of people will work in industry and only a minority will be needed to be educated to a higher standard.

It's a bit outdated as a concept in the UK.

However, the downside of a properly comprehensive system is that it is absurdly expensive because each school is unable to take advantage of economies of scale, having to split its resources betweeen to many different abilities.

DD attends a private school with mixed ability and the sheer amount of resources needed to make it work is notable.

So what we end up with IMVHO is under resourced comprehensives. And this is why they are often inferior.

Is that snobbery? Or as hully said, 'cold eyed realism'?

I've known a couple of children who have deliberately failed the 11+ because they wanted to go to the comp. They have done, or are doing, very well with their education.

Parents don't have to let their child take the 11+. It's optional. If a parent doesn't feel their child is secure enough not to be devastated if they fail the test, then they don't have to do it.

I don't think parental options for schools should be limited because a few parents can't make the right choice for their children.

I think many parents would like the brightest children to be dumbed down slightly, and to not quite achieve the results they should get, and to not excel quite as much as they could...so long as it meant that their average/less than average ability child could share the same school roof as the very brightest.

I don't know where you're getting that from at all, or why you would say it! I'm coming at this from the perspective having a dd who is bright and achieving, and I actively would not want her under a different roof from anyone who is not. And, once again - no she is not 'openly mocked and harassed'.

I suppose it could just be that she's not as clever as I think she is, of course