"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.

Yes it does. I just don't agree that the sooner, the better!

Anyway - tell me what to sodding do about sixth forms on my thread, somebody!

Actually it depends what you means by bright. Some children enter Grammar schools with a reading age below 10 because of the failure of their previous schooling. They are however, bright. Hence the non verbal reasoning component of the test. Those children are recognised on raw ability and excel with the right input.

I probably wrote more books than anyone on the thread, but have no problems with criticism of my punctuation or typos either for that matter as I'm just typing quickly whilst I have fun out earning most men and earning enough to pay school fees as is the duty of all women clever enough to do so.

There was an item on a radio 4 science programme yesterday about visual recognition of people - how very very quickly we pick up lots of clues even before they speak. They were concentrating on your ability to process if someone is gay or straight but it could be as relevant to anything. How you dress, speak and look determines initially how we view someone but then we get to know the Daniel Craig look alike and realise after 2 seconds we are bored to tears or the pretty ugly girl ends up being just the one for us. However without doubt employers and spouses pick people based on their abilities for the role concerned and part of that is skills in doing that work, often brain power but also other factors like social skills (in some jobs, not all - I have worked with brilliant computer programmers one with aspergers and few social skills, one who didn't often wash even) and looks and weight and accent and social class.

The moral imperative on a parent to seek to advantage their own child which also means disadvantage Jane next door in the process is wonderful. It means we love and care for our own and they survive and life. It is what we are here for and parents of both genders are to be commended when they seek the best education for their own child.

I don't want to live in that world Xenia. You and Ayn Rand can live there.

I want to live somewhere caring and fair and sharing and loving.

What if you are Jane next door? Your problem, I suppose.

I am afraid it is this world, from the jungles of the Amazon to London and Paris and the Highlands. It is within us to benefit our own. Of course some down tools leave their families and espouse a cause or are vicars neglecting their children whilst working with the ill of the parish and those are hard decisions to take. i have suggested putting family second and pursuing your career because there is a moral imperative in getting women succeeding and if that means not being a housewife bear that cross but at the heart of most families is putting your own baby first and family. You don't breastfeed your neighbour's child and leave yours screaming. it is brilliant you don't. It is how we are made. It does not mean you don't need to do any charitable work but it is there with us from day 1 as parents.

We tend not to feed our children rubbish whilst taking good steak round to the council estate. I am sure most of us also do charitable acts but our own families rightly come first.

Of course grammar school and selective independent exam results are better than comprehensive school results. The clue is the word selective.
Xenia, I was a SAHM when my girls were younger. Even now I only work part time. I could have gone out and earned money. Probably even enough to have sent them to an independent school. I'm really glad I didn't. It wouldn't have worked for our family. I'm glad it worked for you but I don't want to live in your world. I wouldn't like it.

Yes, Xenia my children came first for me. I wanted to stay at home and nurture them for myself. Why do you find it so hard to understand that not everyone is like you?

It doesn't mean we have to ACCEPT it Xenia.

We could abolish paid-for health, education etc and try and ensure a standard level of education and healthcare for everyone. We don't HAVE to live in a system of inherited and bought privilege.

Mine also aiming high at local comprehensive Nit so completely agree with educating all under one roof. Teachers also can move and educate top sets one day and other sets another day, let's all have the good teachers!

The top sets will do as well if not better then the equivalent at GS. A lot is parenting, anyway. The difference for those in the middle and at the bottom is that they do better at such a school where they can move around and have aspiration, they share the same teachers, than they would do at a secondary modern.

Why should passing an exam give you the right to have what some on this thread have termed education "in smaller groups so they go more individual attention with the best teachers there could possibly get"? Don't all children deserve this?

No.

All schools are the same. Every child gets the same core curriculum in the morning say, and then depending on their talents and or interests, attends different subjects for the afternoon: creative/technical/sporting/musical etc. But everyone does some sort of appropriate exercise for health purposes. And listens to music for spiritual enrichment and stories.

They could still attend the same school, they would just play in a different team according to ability.
The biggest loser in your scenario would be the player who just didn't quite make the first team and so therefore not selected, but with the right coaching could trounce the others!

"Actually it depends what you means by bright. Some children enter Grammar schools with a reading age below 10 because of the failure of their previous schooling. They are however, bright. Hence the non verbal reasoning component of the test. Those children are recognised on raw ability and excel with the right input."

Not round here they don't- because they wouldn't pass the verbal reasoning test.

Following on from your sports analogy, I have noticed that where schools offer participation sports to all, e.g. football "all can attend" there is much more participation generally and all improve (including those who play "matches"); whereas where only the selected "team" can come after school and improve, clearly the gap will become very large very quickly and become them and us in the sport.

LaQueen specialist coaching in sports at school can also benefit those with lower natural sporting ability (or parents who don't play footie in the garden all the time, send children to extra coaching) you know.

time and time again on Mumsnet Xenia, you tell women that they should want what you want and you don't understand that other women are not the same as you and that the overwhelming majority of women will, now and probably till this planet burns out, want to put their family before their career. This is what women want Why do you fail to understand this?

A recent yougov poll revealed that 1% of women want to return to work full-time after having a baby. 1%. A tiny, miniscule minority.
The majority want something different. The majority want a real tangible work life balance and want to spend more time at home than working and earning. Stop trying to convince them that they don't want what they say they want.

I think the thing is that we all have differing abilities but our education system as it stands doesn't cater for them.

Very few people are academic. Most are average by definition. We don't need so many graduates. Those that have experienced higher education are experiencing a watered down version because universities are no longer autonomous institutions. They have targets to meet....

What is needed is a more technical approach, where talents and skills are identified early and a valuable education given. An education that gives the person skills that allow them to be independent adults who feel valuable members of society.

Then we need a societal mindset reset whereby whatever innate talents and skills you possess are respected and encouraged by all rather than the very narrow version of success we are pushing all children towards- academia.

I think if we worked towards a system whereby inherited wealth wasn't celebrated (or even allowed) and your success was based on your own merits we would have a kinder society. A society where people wouldn't have to defend Grammar schools because of the poor alternatives creating such feelings of unjustness.

The problem isn't with Grammar schools but with the lack of anything near like meaningful provision elsewhere for whatever other talents children possess and the notion that being a talented plumber/electrician/nurse/ etc is just a valuable but different from an academic route.

Actually seeker plenty of them do pass the verbal reasoning test with very poor reading ages. However much more emphasis is given to the non-verbal reasoning test in terms of the marking which helps counter this. The marking between the papers isn't evenly split.

Queenie, we can't segregate children on the basis of one exam taken at the age of 10. An exam that children can be tutored for.

Not round here they don't- because they wouldn't pass the verbal reasoning test.

Would you believe it I totally agree with seeker regarding passing 11+ on "raw ability". Although I do not agree with abolition of grammars.

Whilst some do get in without additional help, here the majority have tutoring. The tutoring is to teach them to be able to answer questions in the way they are posed in the 11+. However I do think able children should be taught this at primary level. Years ago it was.

The way that my daughter is taught at independent school, particularly in mathematics, couldn't be more different to when she was at the state school - although it was a poor state school and it is a good independent school.

The problem isn't with Grammar schools but with the lack of anything near like meaningful provision elsewhere for whatever other talents children possess and the notion that being a talented plumber/electrician/nurse/ etc is just a valuable but different from an academic route.

Queenie I totally agree with this. Although my friend used to take on apprentices but has been put off as barely any of them stuck with it. He has just started interviewing again but this time requires the youngsters parent/s/guardian to come with them to make sure they know what it entails!

"Actually seeker plenty of them do pass the verbal reasoning test with very poor reading ages. However much more emphasis is given to the non-verbal reasoning test in terms of the marking which helps counter this. The marking between the papers isn't evenly split."

It is round here.