If bright children do well wherever they go, why is everyone so desperate to get their children into the highest performing grammars/private schools?

[chuckb4ss]

I don't believe that if you put a child in a poorly performing comprehensive school that requires improvement, that they would come out with the exact same A level grades that they would if they had attended one of the top private/grammar schools. (Not saying that A levels are the be all and end all, that's a separate discussion).

I hear all the time that if your child is naturally bright, they will do well wherever they go. If that is the case, then why the competition to get children into the best performing schools?

@virginiacreeper
*Haven't RTT but both DC went to local comp in special measures.
Both got all A at A level and got firsts at RG unis (maths and biology).

and that is a much greater achievement than if they had been to a private school.

Entirely agree, Snoopdogsbitch. The idea that something is 'better' because you pay for it and it comes in a pretty package is laughable. Teachers in private schools can be completely unqualified. Special needs provision can be appalling. The culture and ethos can be utterly skewed (one local private school invests a considerable amount of time and effort in attracting the children of Russian oligarchs - and, believe me, they are the most disruptive kids of all).

Nixkix, exactly, and they have the satisfaction of knowing that the achievement is all theirs, not something you paid to acquire for them.

@tessi It’s not just about the grades it’s about independence from the state system. That’s why we sent ours to independent schools. We chose to spend our money that way.

Why do you want independence from the state system?

I can weigh in here as I can actually give a real example of this. I went from a secondary school to a grammar school. I only got to make the move because I never took my 11 plus.

I left my secondary school in yr8 because my mum found out that it of a year of 120 something students only 5 were doing anything. We constantly had science experiments cancelled because students misbehaving or doing dangerous stuff. Three students tried to saw off their fingers in tech. Another student purposefully lit a teachers hair on fire.

We had teachers trying to teach us basic maths like 1+1 because I shit you not but the teachers decided to start from the beginning so everyone could catch up. I was bearing all those in Yr 9 at yr7 in maths on stuff we hadn't been yay yet.

I was smart yes and did well but I will say, I never would have gotten to where I was without going to the grammar school. Having all those smarter people together did push you. You got to do cool science shit all the time, you could learn which is something I never really got to do at the other school (all my learning was done reading so much myself).

We should have grammar schools - it is a great way to nurture those brains but we need to help more of those naturally smart people get there.

The issue though is again and again, it is the very early years that effect that. It is home life that effects kids more than most people realise.

We love reading on our house and already our kids love books. One is 10 months but is obsessed with them. My 3 and a half year old is reading. They love books because we show them frequently how great they are. They copy us in that. At her preschool they have tapestry that allows both the preschool and parents to upload stuff. I have been uploading lots of photos and videos so they have an idea about her development (she has a habit of down playing what she can do to get praise for stuff that she finds really easy or get something she wants... She's a mini dictator I warn you). Turns out I am the only parent really using it. I'm constantly being told about how much wonderful stuff I do with her because I put her first over having a tidy home or doing what I please.

I am not smart compared to my husband or how family at all. Definitely not after all the head injuries I had as a teen. My mum is very open about how we were left in front of the TV preschool age or stayed around to just fit in around her life. No novel stories about what books they read to us as kids or anything like that. I just happened to fall in love with reading after I hung out with the smart kids from being in the higher tier stuff in primary. Turns out that it because of my dyslexia mixed with my grandad and nan doing most of the raising me part. My family lived away from my grandparents while my sister was preschool age so I had a very different preschool years from her.

We need to try and help out those younger years and those 15-30 hours will help with that but there is still so much more that could be done.

I know that I would never have gotten my grades that I have, nor the chance to go to best uni for my course in the country and I've of the best in the world staying at my secondary school. The grammar school helped me there and I'll always be thankful. I just hope now I can give my two the best start to make the most of any school they go to as I know that will make the biggest difference

How many of the people praising grammar schools are equally in favour of secondary moderns? Not many, I suspect, yet you can't have one without the other. A two-tier schooling system creates winners and losers, but no child should be condemned to an inferior education on the basis of selectivity at the age of eleven.

There are always examples of failing state schools. The answer is to have a system that invests in them, and in families and early years, so they are no longer failing.

The thing is that children now have to stay in education until 18 so you have children that just don’t want to be there

Regardless of where you send them this impacts on others I think

Notwaving - lots of posts on this thread testify to disruption being a problem in some state schools - by no means all, and it does exist in private schools too. But I would guess the problem is more widespread at state schools because of the greater ratio of pupils to staff (I went private and DH state and our experience seems to bear that out).

Namenic - this is from an article in the Telegraph a few years ago:

'Standards of behaviour in private schools are worsening amid a rise in cyberbullying and low-level disruption, an education charity has warned.
Pupils are increasingly using websites such as Twitter and Ask.fm to abuse fellow pupils and staff, it was claimed, with fears that some schools are attempting to brush problems under the carpet for commercial reasons.
Figures show that the number of private school teachers calling a national counselling helpline has doubled in the last 12 months.
The Teacher Support Network also found that almost half of teachers polled as part of an independent survey had reported a worsening of discipline standards over a five-year period.
It claimed that the disclosure “dispels the myth that private education is the easier option”, adding that parents cannot “buy their way out” of the behaviour problems seen in state schools.'

I think for secondary moderns to work people need to invest in them more than grammars and give a wider subject choice with more vocational skills that lead to well paying jobs - electrician, plumber, book-keeping/accounting. But academic subjects should also be taught because kids might find out they want to take a more academic Route later on. Also, I think there should be an option to take longer to do gcses/functional skills - what’s the point in doing trig when you can’t deal with fractions, decimals and percentages properly?

Bright children don’t do well wherever they go. So many factors can contribute to whether a child does well academically. I’m interested that OP thinks we are all so desperate to get our children into the best grammars etc. I wouldn’t dream of sending my children to A private or grammar school as I don’t agree with them. I think mixed ability schools with a wide range of pupils from different background is the way to go and yes, I know , this may not be the case in all areas but I think it would level the playing field and benefit all children in the long run. I may want my own children to do well but I want all children to do well. People laugh when I say this but I feel strongly about it. Doing well at school is about learning to get along with different people, learning resilience, friendship and not just academic results. You only have to see the rise in mental health issues amongst all young people ( whatever their education) to know we are focusing on the wrong things by thinking it’s all about results....

@notwavingbutdrowning5

it's to do with exclusivity. Someone I knew said that he sent his kids to a private school so they would mix with middle-class children like themselves rather than the hoi polloi. People pay to put their kids in a hermetically sealed social bubble. And they pay so that doors will open more easily for them once they leave school.

Sadly I think you are right - which is why I'm delighted that the top universities are starting to recognise this and do something about encouraging children from less advantaged backgrounds.

Roxanne has an important point. If everyone has to stay in school to 18, regardless of whether it suits them or not, then you have a sizeable element who'd prefer to be elsewhere. I think we have exams very wrong in the UK, for pupils who would prefer less academic careers. what would be so disastrous about offering an end of school exam, to be taken at any age from 15, that demonstrated a sensible level of English and (arithmetical) Mathse. Some with "get" the value of education later and others will become skilled digger-dozer drivers and brilliant make up artists. And some will find ambition at 25 when they have a family to look after. But there needs to be a qualification path that suits people whose direction is not Oxbridge or RG, without any whiff of failure.

statistically my guess is that fewer private schools have as many problems with kids trying to saw off their fingers or cancelled science experiments as described above. I suspect it is a lot easier to keep an eye on 15 kids than 30. But there is such a variety in private and state schools that it just depends on what choice you have in your area. Sending a child to a badly failing unsafe school with discipline problems (whether private or state) benefits no one.

I may want my own children to do well but I want all children to do well.

This, Birthday552. Until we start thinking about education as something that all children should be given a decent shot at, we will continue to perpetuate inequalities that impoverish all our lives, whether directly or indirectly.

Parents are desperate to get their children into selective indie/grammar schools for a variety of reasons as people have mentioned:

• they don't have a 'good' state school option to consider
• they have an innate belief that private will always be superior and would never ever consider state comp
• they feel their DC will be better pushed/challenged/engaged in a selective environment
• they feel their DC won't cope in the state system
• they feel their DC will benefit from smaller class sizes and better enrichment opportunities
• they don't want their DC to have to try and learn alongside disruptive pupils where teachers are spending a lot of time trying to crowd control
• they don't want their DC to have to work alongside any pupils with SEN (might make an exception for very mild dyslexia in an otherwise gifted child, but anything else, forget it)
• they want single sex education which (generally) the state comp sector doesn't offer.

I can absolutely see why parents want to get their DC into the selective school environment and at the end of the day any parent just does whatever they can to help their child. All that said, I will always believe that a child who comes out of a non-selective state comprehensive with excellent grades is automatically more impressive than a child who comes out of a highly selective private/grammar school with excellent grades. Because the comprehensive child cannot have been nurtured prodded and pushed and coddled in the way that the private/grammar school child has.

So they don't mix with the riff raff??

Reasons for sending your child to a state school include:

• trust in the state system and the teachers who work in it
• a desire not to isolate your kids from those with different life experiences and backgrounds
• valuing being part of the community

• respecting your child's wishes, especially if that school is the one all their friends are transferring to
• a dislike of privilege
• a conviction that no child should be disadvantaged educationally because of the material circumstances of their parents

- needing good SEN provision for your child

• trusting that children who are not necessarily wealthy and privileged will be just as good companions for your child as those who are

@notwaving, if you need good, or even decant SEN provision, you really really wouldn't choose a rural comprehensive. Or not in Cornwall.

'Bright children will do well wherever they go to school' is just a platitude.

How about this -
Poorly performing schools tend to be in poorer areas, lack of facilities, more broken homes, lack of parental support and input.
Racism
Bullying
No space (literally no games fields, Science labs, libraries etc.)
Overcrowding in classrooms
Lack of one on one, personal attention
Lost in a sea of numbers
No emphasis on the arts, sports, classics
Harder to discipline larger numbers of students
Expectations are higher in private schools
Stronger academic drive expected from teachers and students
All expected to go to uni or get excellent grades
Better pastoral care
More exposure to a well rounded education including travel, day trips, mentors
Need I go on?

The thing that annoys me is that the more this divisive pattern happens with education, the worse it will get. So almost always PM from Eton. Heads of industry from top public schools. If it were more like France and children went to local school, few in private, would make for a more diverse and creative mix. We need talent now more than ever. Not the stale old system.

All true lovely, but as most comprehensive schools fail badly at teaching pupils any leadership skills, and top public schools make it their plus, why would you be surprised?

Not noticed any nurturing or coddling in my dc’s grammar. Quite the reverse. Curriculum delivered, kids just expected to get on with it. Motivation and dealing with any difficulties academically or otherwise is expected to come from themselves. Local comp does the nurturing, coaxing and supporting. Grammar schools really aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.