to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

Very wise seek

She also commented that their GLS was newer and bigger than my ML Mercedes !

It comes with the territory, though its better than the girl i brought home from my 'Modern School' one afternoon who i caught in my mums bedroom looking at mums 'jewellery'.

...and now you sound just as bad.

Just a bit of 'humor' Small Fox . I was a very 'Vulnerable' child and in many ways i am still a 'Vulnerable ' adult hence why i receive PIP!

The girl in question was taking advantage of my 'Vulnerabilty' as a child with SEN issues !

OK.

Apologies.

Now, where is my foot?

Although surely an essay on Shakespeare is equally irrelevant for a child who wants to take STEM subjects, or MFLs, for example, at university, isn't it? Are you basically saying, thebottom 10%should do the same subjects, but not the hard bits?

What you are saying, to me, is that children are over-educated in the later years of high school. I agree, to an extent, but it depends on whether the students are forced to take mandatory subjects and if they have alternative subject choices and variable subject loading (a min-max variable education loading).

Academicaly poor students taught simpler version courses is already done, but teachers should be given a mandate to develop functional individuals equipped with useful real life knowledge and interactions, because down low socialisation and self esteem are damaged over time. I guarantee that if you proceeded in a job year after year that you were forced by law to do, being given constant feedback you were crap compared to everyone else doing it, you would develop a deeply unhealthy psyche.

Just to add to the anectotage- ds's friend cried today when her history controlled assessment was marked B. Presumably, because it's a secondary modern, she was crying because of the bullying she was anticipating for being "clever"....

My children couldn't be a more perfect fit for grammar school if they had been printed out from a pre prepared spec! Right down to fine detail- dd had long swishy hair and ds has a posh boy flop. They have standard middle class names and they even both play slightly obscure musical instruments.

I dont know exactly what kind of education system the UK has, but no amount of majestic swishy long hair or posh boy flop is going to get a kid into an academic opportunity or talented and gifted public education system I have ever heard of, not unless the parent can find someone corrupt enough to bribe to doctor test results. I have heard of particular kids forced into systems, via questionable means, by parents who 'wanted the best' for their kid. Most times its a disaster for the kid, because education is not just something you pour into a kid, its a synergy with what they are able to put out. They get swamped and burn out.

However I think the things you talk about would gain great traction in a private school system.

Dadwashere- did you notice where I said "down to the fine detail'?

Apologies if I missed this upthread, but the Torygraph ran an interesting article by a university vice-chancellor. It made the simple point that grammar schools serve no purpose if all they do is deliver a stream of highly-indebted university graduates.

He said in the past, grammar school leavers had plenty of professional jobs to go straight into, and that is why they assisted social mobility. Those jobs no longer exist.

I am deeply amused at the notion that BR is a deluded, pushy parent trying to force her average kids into an academically pressured environment because they have the right hair...

I think the ability to pass the 11+ test, is probably rather more useful than having the 'right' sort of hair

I'm not sure about that. The way many bright average kids are tutored from Y3, it's probably about as useful as hair floppiness or swish.

Academicaly poor students taught simpler version courses is already done, but teachers should be given a mandate to develop functional individuals equipped with useful real life knowledge and interactions, because down low socialisation and self esteem are damaged over time. I guarantee that if you proceeded in a job year after year that you were forced by law to do, being given constant feedback you were crap compared to everyone else doing it, you would develop a deeply unhealthy psyche.

I agree that students shouldn't be set up to fail, but I totally disagree that children who are less academic should be deprived of a wider education and exposure to culture and literature.

My DD went to a deprived French middle school and was in a very mixed ability class. In her final year (Y10) they did a performance of a classic piece of French theatre which you might assume would be inaccessible to less able students. In fact, the stand-out performance was from a student who wasn't academically able at all.

You're probably right Pax

Though, I do think tutoring from Yr 3 is bonkers...though, I totally understand why it happens. It only takes one parent to start tutoring in Yr 3, and another parent gets wind off it...then it's a dominoe effect.

Madness.

Oh god I'm so glad I live where I do. Two of the highest performing schools in the country, single sex, Ofsted outstanding. And available to any child who lives in catchment.

What are house prices like round your neck of the woods, Lumpy? Out of interest...?

The ability to pass the 11+ is undoubtedly more important in helping you gain a place than your hair, yes. That is why tutors cost more than hairdressers. Or I imagine they do: can anyone confirm?

Academicaly poor students [sic]

Here we go again: the Platonic fetish in British schools of separating the "academic" from the "non-academic". Or, to put it more honestly, separating the governing class led by the philosopher rulers with their PPE degrees from Oxbridge from the badly-paid humble workers in the philosopher rulers' call-centres and factories.

I look around me at people in general in NZ, including children, and I just don't see this division. Some people are good at some things, other people are good at others. Some people are good at maths but weaker than English, and others vice versa. A child might struggle at school for all manner of reasons: poor teaching, poor attention span, lack of support at home, or special needs. When you consider those, "not academic" sounds like an absolutely awful glossing over of the real problems in schools - which is precisely what reintroducing grammar schools is.

Nooooo, it costs me £60 for a cut & blow-dry (takes about an hour). And, we paid £30 for an hour for the DDs tutor.

But, tutors aren't magicians. They don't have magic wands. A child still needs to have the innate ability if they are going to pass. I know plenty of children who failed the 11+, despite being tutored.

Depends how often one gets the kids' hair cut then I suppose! Yes, all about managing the innate ability to get the place that's basically yours - you wouldn't want to lose it by not having a bit of extra help! And it does help by weeding out anyone who didn't have the wherewithal to get a tutor, which is handy in helping with the elimination of uncouth parents in the lobby. What a perfect system!

High for the country but reasonable for the SE. A reasonable amount of social housing around too.

That's nice for you Lumpy.
Why is there so much horror on Mumsnet about the grammar/secondary modern divide and not about the difference in comprehensive provision between different areas? I have only just in the last few days found out about the funding differences and I am that we're not more collectively up in arms about it.

Apologies, I have been getting excessively chippy about the north-south, or rather, London and south east versus the provinces thing since I started reading about funding differences, but no reason to take it out on you

London does get more funding, for everything, than other areas, but unlike most areas of the country, London contributes more than it takes from the exchequer. It would be extremely difficult for a government to cut funding in from London to move to other areas and be able to justify it.