To feel we are all a little bit too obsessed with education and school?

[TheOddity]

I've seen threads recently about people remortgaging their house for private education, teachers publicly shamed in front of their peers for results beyond their control, people moving house to be nearer a good nursery, and on and on.
I recently moved to another country in Europe. I asked my new neighbour what the local nursery was like as that's where we intended to send our son. They said "it's very close and convenient". My spidey senses were tingling, did this mean it was a failing nursery? Next I go to the first parents' meeting. Not a word was spoken about targets, the curriculum etc. it was all about food and naps. In the end section for questions, the questions parents asked were about.....food and naps! He is there now for half a year, it's fine, And hopefully sometimes he is learning. There is one secondary school nearby so everyone goes there and again, it's fine. I am not overly worried my son will fail, because he is bright and I will help him.
I just think, are we all insane in the UK? Is it worth the stress? At the end of the day, if you are worried enough about them to remortgage your house, surely you could just do a bit of homework with them each night and it will all turn out ok? AIBU to think that school is all a bit out of proportion and life is pretty unpredictable unless your parents already own a fortune?

where I explained why I chose to send my children to schools that bit further away as all the local ones were shockingly bad, and all I got was negativity

Most of my friends proper - old friends have their eye on dc education and are doing prep or good state primary. However I have been surprised where I live, many of my neighbours all fairly educated but no lawyers etc, have not really seemed bothered at all, put dc into nearest nursery ( dreadful rep) , and are happy with nearest school too (dreadful rep) . Not everyone is worried about it.

I went to my local schools as there was no other option, everyone went to the closest school, but as it was in a fairly poor catchment area there were some problems and exam results were nothing to write home about. But as the spread of kids was even you could do well. My DH went to a mixture of private, boarding and grammar schools, chopping and changing every few years. We basically got the same A Level results. I wanted to learn and was encouraged to by my parents so I did well. Home life is the most important thing. However I know I'm probably going to put DS in for the 11+ when the time comes as the Grammar school is SO good it would be crazy not to. I am uncomfortably aware though that the existence of all these selective private and Grammar schools where I live now means that you do get 'worse' schools 'left over' if all the parents who can afford to move to certain expensive catchments, pay for tutors and go private. It just seems a lot easier to have more of a mixture of all levels and abilities, but I say that as I did well in that situation.

Yanbu op

All this talk of Oxbridge - my friend got a first from Oxford, does she earn significantly more than me/ have a different life..... no.

There is an obsession on mn with hot housing, highest grades = success in career. Wrong, to find work you need to have skills someone wants to buy, simple as that. Everyone has different skills and strengths the key is to find and use them, not to get a whole string of A*s.

Of course young people need a good level of education to succeed and when children (usually from deprived backgrounds) turned up at secondary school with the resting skills of an average 6 year old this is going to prevent them acquiring the skills they need. Unfortunately though this better achievement across the board had led to some middle class parents wanting their children to do even better. In the long term these poor children still have same inate academic ability. Hence ks2 sats not being relative in predicting GCSE results.

Once people start work it's what they do at work that makes them successful. If you want to support your child in that first step find out about the skills gaps in the economy and help them see what they can do, enjoy that there are actually jobs in.

reading skills

I would love it if no one had seen a paper in advance. If they had never seen a NVR paper it would really sort out the brightest! It would become a fair system.

"It doesnt though, most states dont even mention the 11+.
The state is also failing bright pupils, its those bright pupils who would have gone onto positions of so called power which is now being called a closed circuit, because its only open to children of rich parents or invested parents...the circle continues."

Look - if

1. children are reliant on parent entering them for grammar school entrance
2. children are being forced to compete for places at grammar schools, then children from well-off families will ALWAYS have the edge, because no matter what state primaries do to prepare children for the 11+ - PRIVATE PREPS AND WELL OFF PARENTS WILL DO MORE.

Because that's how private schools 'sell' themselves - that they give your child an advantage over other children of similar ability who can't access a privileged education. If they didn't offer more then parents wouldn't use them, therefore they WILL offer more.

State schools absolutely can't compete with private preps where children are educated ALL DAY in classes of 10 - 15 high ability children. They can't. Even if they offer regular 'booster sessions' in literacy and maths, how can they compete with the extra teaching time that bright children get in private schools.

No - if we're going to keep grammars then we have to make the system of selection fairer, which means that parents have got to be taken out of the equation as much as possible. Grammar schools must be made to take a representative intake from the schools within their catchment.

Small problem.They can't take a representative intake if they're not up to the standard,it would be utterly pointless and miserable for the children involved.

Which gets us back to the op.More parents need to take more of an interest in their children's education.A bit of tutoring won't cut it.You need years of decent bedtimes,lots of reading,high expectations,homework done to the best of their ability,respect for school etc.

This constant belittling of those who do all the above doesn't help anybody least of all the kids who need it most.

And what Meh said- there are hardly any grammars left.They don't even compete with private schools as regards private schools according to recent research so they're hardly a golden ticket.

The bigger issue is income facilitating the hoovering up of places in the best comps,but nobody on MN likes to discuss that as many on here benefit from it but resent the minuscule numbers in grammar schools for some bizarre reason.

OP do you know any parents of older children where you are? In my experience they do seem very relaxed in the early years but they spend a fortune later on private tutors.
In some continental countries -i have 3-4 in my mind- there is a culture of private tuition, very heavy one.
The schools have less autonomy in some countries too.

"Small problem.They can't take a representative intake if they're not up to the standard,it would be utterly pointless and miserable for the children involved"

You think that state primaries don't have enough children in them capable of benefiting from a grammar school education to fill every grammar school place three times over?

Don't be daft.

There are very clever children in ALL state primaries.

If the primaries did more the private schools and tutors etc would have to do even more!

"The bigger issue is income facilitating the hoovering up of places in the best comps,but nobody on MN likes to discuss that as many on here benefit from it "

Oh come off it. There are many of us here objecting to unfair admissions procedures in the state sector, you just ignore us because it doesn't suit your argument.

Let's face it - life isn't fair - and in RL, it's a bunfight for the 'good' jobs. If we only look at the number of graduate jobs available from major employers and I'm not just talking about the investment banks and the City although those are the headliner salaries that are pilloried.

Demand and supply - we have more graduates than there are jobs so it's a competition out there. Working backwards, it means on paper, just to get to the interview stage, you NEED good exam results not to have your CV binned - that's the reality. So, it's the common goal of increasing your children's chances of attaining that - whether through selective private education, state grammar, moving into catchment of an oversubscribed high achieving comp, finding faith, etc....

And it's not true - results still matter when you have 10+ yrs of experience behind you - they just matter less. We're in our mid 40's and many of our peers are reaching their career peaks - equity partners and senior management i.e board level at PLC's. Without a shadow of a doubt, DH feels he is at an disadvantage because he didn't attend Oxbridge or gain an MBA from a more prestigious uni (even though one from Warwick is not exactly mediocre!). At board level, connections definitely matter - it's rare to stay at one company long term. You don't have to even apply for a position, you're normally approached by an intermediary hoping to poach you from your present position!

Obviously, that isn't for everyone - so why do the majority of us 'jostle' for the better achieving schools whether it's state or private? Let's not forget all the MC support at home which underlies so many of the KS1/2 statistics achieved at numerous state primaries.

Mini all your arguments lay blame everywhere but state primaries.
State primaries are not helping their bright pupils access other schools.
Sate primaries are failing bright pupils.

Have you read that sutton report link because its about this very issue.

"If the primaries did more the private schools and tutors etc would have to do even more!"

There is a nuclear arms race going on in relation to tutoring and competition for academically selective state schools.

You send your child to Kumon maths?

Kumon maths? I raise you a 3 hour weekly small group 11+ tutoring.

Small group tutoring? I raise you a one to one session with a teacher with a track record of getting children through the 11+.

One to one tutoring? I raise you one to one tutoring followed by 11+ intensive summer courses!

One to one tutoring and 11+ summer courses?

I raise you one to one tutoring and 11+ summer courses, PLUS full-time private schooling.

One to one tutoring, 11+ summer courses and full-time private schooling?

I raise you one to one tutoring, 11+ summer courses, full-time private schooling AND school time 11+ 'booster sessions'.....

Etc etc.

One in four children in the UK is now tutored. One in four. I suspect that in London it's one in three.

It seems to have paased people by that in 90% of the country the primaries do not fail their pupils getting access to other schools because the other schoools are comprehensive and do not select from ability! Tiny pockets of the country have selection. ( maybe a lot of MNetters live in Kent or or other pockets)

Mini have you read that report, you seem interested in this subject?

My children got into their comprehensive because they lived in the catchment area and went to a feeder school.

"State primaries are not helping their bright pupils access other schools.
Sate primaries are failing bright pupils."

So what do you suggest?

That schools should spend more money on bright children? Because more money would be needed for small group teaching of these children.

Where would the money come from?

Where should it be diverted from?

Or are you offering to pay shed-loads more tax, so that my child can have the same amount of money spent on his education as a child in a private school? Be taught in classes of 13 instead of classes of 31? Remove all the children who don't have English as a first language and all the children with special needs, so that teachers can concentrate on the children who are achieving well?

Mini grammars take top level 5/6 pupils of which there aren't hoards in every state primary.There shouldn't be as these are secondary school levels.

Re the buying up of places in the better comps it isn't just me that says it is an issue but Sutton too,a big one,far bigger than GSs as it involves far,far bigger numbers of children.

Also it is harder to pay high rent/mortgage in expensive areas and thus get into the best state schools than it is to do extra study off the internet for free in order to pass an exam.

the primaries do not fail their pupils getting access to other schools because the other schoools are comprehensive and do not select from ability!

Indeed so one lot has an aim, short term and long term goals and the other .....what aim what are they reaching for, why are they in school.

The huge problem for the country is that I could afford to choose where to live according to the best comprehensives- many can't.
(I could see my dream house but wouldn't buy it if it was in the 'wrong' area for schools.)

Mine are in school to get the best possible education, hopefully foster a love of life long learning, and to open as many doors possible for career choice.

arna is right that even 10 years into some jobs employees will look at A level grades and type of university too and whether you got a 2/1 and rightly so given how many people are competing for each job.

I am very laid back about what the children do and I want their education to be about education in the wider sense for life and I am happy to pay for that.No tutoring. No pressure but very very good academic private schools and getting them into those as young as possible 4 or 5 years old not 11+ but their choices of career later whether that be a contemplative nun, beach bum or top surgeon. I was looking at my mother's handwritten family tree she drew up in the 1970s recently. She did very well for someone from her background 9 grandfather a miner etc. not least because of a very high IQ. She had underlined all her cousins who had become teachers, dentists etc. Clearly education for all of them in the 1930s was the route out of poverty as it is for so many today particularly many second generation immigrants around me - where I live (where in my London borough people are 63% black and ethnic minority etc). It is very very helpful for my children to go to school with children whose parents many of whom grew up abroad or their parents did who value education so much. We are very lucky to live with such people.

So what do you suggest?

I suggest what the sutton trust suggests which is more help from state primaries for more academic pupils.

Mini I am not talking about a whole extra level of education and teaching just a few extra sessions for brighter pupils.

Any parent who has been through it with thier own child could do a few workshops, a few times at various points!

Pupils still get into grammar now, with minimal tutoring from state, intervention and many parents just need a tutor to say - here is what the tests look like, do a few. Here is time ing tips. And here is the Maths you cannot access at state primary.

You cannot tutor in intelligence to a child who has none at this level.

Whats currently happening is ghettoizing of bright children with parents who, for whatever reasons, ideological etc not supporting their children.
They get shoved on into any old comp never even knowing there might have been a choice for them.

I was stunned to learn state primaries do not have any aim when it comes to the children moving on, I was stunned.

This is where your in equality is largely coming from, in the small % that can access grammar.