To think that it is hypocritical to be anti Private,Selective or Single Sex Schools when you have benefited from them.

[smokepole]

Having read many threads on this site and having read a couple in particular today, it seems that "most" of the posters on here have benefited from these types of schools. However, time and time again you read these people slating Grammar , Private and single sex schools. This is so hypocritical that the posters who have had the benefit of the best of the education system, seem so anti any form of selection for today's children.

I had the misfortune of being educated in a Secondary Modern in Kent in the 1980s . There are not many Secondary Modern educated posters on this site, which goes to show how fortunate the majority of posters on here were with their educations. These people are like "Champagne Socialists" having benefited from superior educations, but seek to deny the opportunities for future generations. "DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO" springs to mind with these posters who espouse the merits of Comprehensive education, having not being educated through the Comprehensive system themselves.

Szeli
A secondary Modern takes the children who fail the 11+ to get into the grammar school.

A comp takes all children in areas without the 11+

There has to be a much more blatant discrepancy between words and actions before I'd start thinking someone was being hypocritical OP

For a start as several have said it was their parent's choice which school they went to themselves - now they have to make that choice for their own DC, bringing all their life experience to bear in their considerations (as we do for all major decisions in life)

IMHO the "hypocrisy" label is only for the big things, and would involve serious mistreatment of others too

I have an objection to independent schools, and being able to get a better start in life because of who your parents are. But yet my son attends one because I had to make the decision that was right for him, as a mother it was the only right decision, despite the fact that I object to it in principle. The world isn't perfect.

Ok ..Hakluyt. here goes The Cream Of Secondary Modern Schools in the Uk.

Blessed Thomas Halford Altrincham 85% A*-C English/Maths 3% AAB 2 Fac subjects A Level.

Coombe Girls School New Maldon 77% A*-C English/Maths 8% AAB 2 Fac subjects A level.

1. Wadderson School Alyesbury 74% A*-C English/Maths 6% AAB 2 Fac

subjects at A level. 4. Great Marlow School Marlow 70% A*-C English/Maths

5..
Wellington School Altrincham 63%(74%) 2014 A*English/Maths 5% AAB 2 Fac Subjects A Level

These are all designated on the Dept Of Education Performance Tables as Secondary Moderns. 2013 Results with the exception of Wellington () 2014 because I have looked up current results, because of thought of relocating there.

apparently the teaching at the local aspired girls grammar isn't up to much which I was quite surprised about.

Haven't got time to dig in the data at the moment- but just looking at your first one- the Blessed Thomas appears to have made all the low attainers disappear. A miracle!

So does that mean all secondary schools in an area with gramnar schools are secondary moderns?

sorry this is very confusing, the non grammars were referred to as comps where i grew up.

either way the choice your child chooses to make doesnt make you a hypocrite

Hakluyt. Because I am a "Geek" I have just been looking at Traffords other schools it seems that all its Secondary Schools have a small no of low attainers . I have also found another "Super modern" there.

Flixton Girls 9% Low Attainers 73% A*-C Maths/English Relatively high FSM of 13.5% so it is doing fab.

Other Schools include Stretford High School which is in social deprived area 24% Low Attainers 52% A*-C 39.7% FSM yet achieving good results of 52%. Showing that Modern Schools can succeed even when in deprived areas.

Most of the schools in Trafford have between 10-13% low attainers, so the Primary Schools must be doing a good job.

As I said on another thread smoke I think you are way to fixated with academic results. Probably because your parents take the piss out of you for not attaining better exam results. Your parents are bang out of order.
I am a high academic achiever and what I do now has nothing to do with all the complex teaching and research I have done. I could have a life as an academic, but as my field of expertise involves vivisection I will not do it on ethical grounds. So basically years of obtaining degree after degree has counted for nothing. Even if I did not have views on animal rights the pay for academics is shit.
Look at the likes of Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne. They left school with nothing and they have done well. Richard Branson struggled at school with severe dyslexia.
My son is going to the local comp. If we have difficulties with the standard of academic teaching I will tutor him. I want him to go to a bog standard school as this will be his best opportunity to mix with a diverse group. Send him to a top fee paying and he will be mixing with toffs (as I ended up having to do at Cambridge). Send him to a faith school and he will have God taught to him as fact as that is what happened to me. They left the belief system and science bit out until I was about 13. Even then it was glossed over, just in case anyone might defect from Christianity. As for the many other religions of the world, my school opted out of teaching them, but fortunately for me at Uni there were some Muslims who taught me about Islam and a Jewish guy who explained the basics of his faith to me. If it were not for them I would be ignorant towards other cultures which in this day and age is unacceptable.

Blessed Thomas has 3% low attainers. And you do wonder a bit where the others are. And how they managed the selection process.........

Szeli
Yes. Anything that is not a Grammar in a solidly 11+ area is a secondary modern.

Smokepole
Coombe Girls is NOT a secondary Modern : because it is in London so parents have LOADS of choices other than the grammars.

But please, the chip on your shoulder about your schooling is
(a) a result of living in Kent
(b) historic
Please stop projecting it onto the rest of us.

hypocritical to not want my children to have their self esteem and self respect slashed in an environment that tends to favour money, intelligence and men over being a decent person. To not want them to be subjected to the same bullying and discrimination that teachers turned a blind eye to when i was there? to have old alcoholics and letchs for teachers who would've been struck off years ago in a state school. That was my experience. you may as well say its hypocritical for people who've had the 'benefit' of smacking to not smack their children by your logic

my being private schooled was not a choice, it was my parents thinking I was too stupid, lazy and naughty to pass my GCSE's anywhere else, and ignoring how fucked up the environment was for an easy life. The school environment I was in was seriously damaging to me, I gave up on education and ended up in hospital with a related issue straight after I left, so I really take acception on to the 'benefits' you mention. part of the problem was the school itself, but a lot of it was the private school structure in generating social apartide. and I do have a comparison having been state schooled for over half my time in school. sorry you've really pissed me off, I haven't read the other replies, CBA to get into a debate. if you know you're doing the right thing for your kids good for you, you don't have to criticize other peoples opinions.

I went to a sec modern after not passing the 11 plus. It was a rubbish school and it took me ages to get there but it was Catholic which my parents were obsessed with. I have done ok, however I would loved to have been stretched with great teachers as opposed to what I ended up with.

Consequently when I married late in life and we had two children also late our DS's are now at a well known boarding school. Has it been the making of them with both not being particularly academic...

You bet it did, the smaller classes, the parents demanding the best and stepping in if they don't get it.

I went to a comp. I went on to a university with lots and lots of privately educated kids and they were no better or brighter than I was - and some were really painfully sheltered (although I do know that will vary enormously).

I don't know what will happen with my kids. If we're in an 11-plus area they'll take the exam, and then we'll see. But my preference would always be for a good comp. Not because I don't want the best for my kids, but because I think a good State education with mixed intake IS the best for them.

I am aware that some kids both private and state are not allowed to travel on the tube on their own, who are fussed over constantly by their parents and who have never had a Sat job because it would all be a bit too much for them.

Fwiw my DS is at boarding school, did a mail shot last year to get a summer job and travels all around the country on his own. He had been offered drugs most times he goes into London and found himself stuck at the local station without a working mobile very late at night. All of this whilst not ideal makes him street wise and we know he will be absolutely fine at university next year.

If Flixton Girls' has 9% low attainers, why is there 5A*-C inc ENg&Ma not 93%?
Children in the medium band (i.e. 4s at KS2) are expected to achieve Cs at GCSE.
20% of their girls are being failed.

I have just watched Fraser Nelson on channel Four on "the rich get richer".
It is quite telling the statistics he stated particularly the education ones. 75% of Judges Privately Educated 35% of the Government privately Educated.

However, perhaps more relevant is that 66% of Mumsnet posters were Educated Privately or Selectively as opposed to the 7% private and 3% Grammar educated nationally. This site also includes perhaps over 80% degree educated posters this is not a representative figure of society in general... Only Joking..... but the point is this site does cater for a small section of society that is Educated ,"slighty" left learning in political terms and broadly professional in demographic. Posters on this site, on the whole had very positive educational experiences, that many people in general particularly those educated in the 70s/80s did not share. Many people who did not share in positive experiences of education, are now In Low paid or Zero Hour contract jobs. The children of these people who may be bright are destined to go to the neighbour hood school and be dammed to the poverty of aspiration that is endemic in their catchment school. These parents would give anything for the chance that their bright child could be educated in a selective or private environment, thus enabling their child to join the doyens of the "Mumsnet" crowd .

This does tell a story, about the importance of selection in education to achieve and avoid the perils of low paid employment or zero hour contracts E.T.C. . This selection includes Comprehensive Schools in sought after prosperous areas. The truth is many people who claim to "despise" selection will choose these types of Comprehensives for their children. They will still point out their ideological views against selective schools, but use selection in a covert way in their choice of "comprehensive"

And I am confused... are you holding up Wellington school, Altringham as an example of an excellent school? With 63% 5A*-C?

Perhaps their intake is low ability though, as isn't Altringham a grammar LA?

FFS I give up.

School (COMPREHENSIVE, I repeat) has been entirely irrelevant to everything I've done since I got into university. University has been largely irrelevant since I got onto a postgrad training course. That, in turn, hasn't been something most people have been interested in since I got some decent professional experience under my belt.

You have a hang-up. A massive one. And if you teach your children that school is the be-all and end-all of life you are doing them NO FAVOURS AT ALL.

But by all means keep banging on and ignoring the very many people who've taken time to offer a different view.

Where do you get the 66% of MNers privately or selectively educated?
MN demographics have changed hugely in the last 4 years. It's not the enclave it once was.

Moon I think that was a jokey made up figure.

Smoke the other stuff you're spouting as fact about people who were educated in the 70s and 80s as if your experience is true of all of us. You don't know that. You're extrapolating wildly and assuming we had your experience.

63% was a "Poor "result for them in 2013 , the previous years were in the 70s. however, 2014 results show 74% GCSE at A*-C Maths/English.

Trafford and Altrincham is a totally selective area with over 30% educated in the various Grammar schools. Wellington Is classed as a Modern school, but it as achieved all kinds of education awards over the last 20 years. It has been such a success story, that 20 years ago or so parents would seek sanctuary in the neighbouring Comprehensive "Macclesfield" now Cheshire East's and in particular Knutsford High/Academy. The dam has broken in that area and the flight of parents has gone the other way. The Fully Comprehensive Knutsford Academy is the school to avoid, while parents would give "blood" to get their child in to Wellington the "modern". Knutsford academy by the way 2014 57%GCSE....

I hope Knutsford does not join in with a "class" action with a lawyer from Harrogate ....

Second sentence got garbled sorry but you get my drift.

Smokepole
When any of us use stats to support our views you shout us down
can you not see the hypocrisy in your posts?

So, opening post Sunday night:

"I had the misfortune of being educated in a Secondary Modern in Kent in the 1980s . There are not many Secondary Modern educated posters on this site, which goes to show how fortunate the majority of posters on here were with their educations. "

By Monday night, Secondary Moderns are beacons of excellence, refuges from the evil comprehensive schools.