"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.

would like to surround my DC with similar DC who loved to learn - knew how to behave and in smaller groups so they go more individual attention with the best teachers there could possibly get.

I don?t know many parents who wouldn?t.

I think it less about wanting the top few to be dummied down but more fighting to get better resources for their DC.

I think it's human nature to surround oneself with htose who share the same values and abilities and interests.

As adults we like to be in work environemnts where our co workers share a commonality. We seek out groups of similar minded people.

But laqueen the downsides you list are downsides for the children at grammar school - long journeys etc. Can you not look outside that and consider downsides for anyone else?

As I've said - I don't think 'snobby' is especially the mot juste here. But saying comprehensives are generally inferior - well there's something a little bit distasteful about that to me.

Doubtless because I didn't earn umpty billion pounds in career I picked, or because I don't think my children would get into grammar, or because I'm an inverted snob.... which is, now I come to think of it, the context in which I think the word 'snob' is most often used on MN!

Yes, but I don't think you should extend that personal experience to make sweeping statements about clever children all being mocked and derided by anyone less bright.

Nit, you can't deny one child the education that is best for them because another child might feel bad about it.

They are both equal, as as long as the state is providing them both with a good education, there doesn't need to be a problem.

No, and I wouldn't want to, and that's never been what I suggested.

It is frankly ridiculous to say they are both equal though - when you decide where they go based on whether they pass a test or fail a test!

Well - I'll have to take your word for that. I take huge issue with the sweeping statements about bright children not being able to get on and be happy unless all the less clever children are hidden away elsewhere. They can. They do.

Of course they are equal!

They might be different, have different strengths and be suited to a different type of education, but their worth is equal and their right to an education that suits them is equal.

Just because you SAY a thing don't make it true.

"However, our local GS beats the comp's GCSE results into a cocked hat, every year, without fail."

Of course it does. But if you compare the results of the top 23% at the comprehensive school with the grammar school you may find the difference diminishes radically.

If academic success counts for nothing-and achievement in this respect- why educate your children through the 'system' ?

Why bother letting them take any exams at all? Why not just home educate in accordance with your views?

Life for most people is competitive. That is what exams are about after all, as a marker to distinguish ability. Why do so many people live in denial of this?

So people fail at times. It is how we deal with failure which is character building and a fact of life.

Ideally if your child isn't academic than other talents they have would be recognised and celebrated through a different path in education.

Comprehensive schools, have for the main part, failed many children. It was an ill thought through ideology which has actually hindered social mobility for many of the poorest people in our society -dressed up as socialism. In fact it seems to have stemmed from many middle class parents who were dissatisfied that their children didn't have the raw talent to qualify, where as poor but talented children were given enhanced life chances. Now that wouldn't do would it?

Oh look there's someone who went to Eton!

And someone who went to Bogend Comp!

They are equal with equal chances!

Er...no they aren't.

Queenie, I'm not sure what your point is. I have no issue with exams at all. But I do not think it right to segregate at 11 based on one of them.

Seeker-those schools are typically colonised by middle class professional people.

If you were to consider the value added scores of many Grammar Schools your argument wouldn't stand up.

Well, considering I think I'm the only person on here with children who are at a comprehensive, I disagree.

If the grammar schools are so good at adding value, why don't they try it on some less bright children?

I believe that at some point segregation occurs anyway if you sit exams and follow that path.

I don't think it does. I think the top 20% will perform more or less on a par whether they are at grammar school or in the top set of a comprehensive. That is certainly, what the statistics show.

The people who are the real victims of the selective system are the 77% who don't make the cut.

QLE are you referring to Holland Park Comp perchance?