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?

It's nonsense because there really are some truly awful comprehensive schools out there. A lot of the posters clearly went to them, I taught in a couple but attended a decent one myself.

But there are also some good comprehensive schools with lots of academic children in them so that is when it makes less difference.

Its the 'only the best for my child' philosophy that i don't get - what is the end game? are all these kids meant to become human rights lawyers or surgeons? Most go into careers that simply do not need a private education - seems a waste

Vulpine I’m not sure why you think it would be a waste. Private school alumni are overrepresented at the top of many professions - not just the hot shot lawyers etc. Also for many people there is value of education in itself.

It also not just about where they end up/in what profession. Its about who they are when they get there.

The point is not that private school will make every kid a surgeon, but that the increased individual attention will help them learn - whether that is academic subjects, sport, extra-curricular. So, someone who may have got a D in maths might, with a bit of support get a C or B. In such a case, which parent (who could afford it) would not get a tutor (regardless of if their child went to state or private)?

You can argue that our system is not good at helping kids who don’t do well in gcses. Why have a system where kids are pushed through gcses when they are way behind at KS2 or 3 stage? Maybe give them the option of an extra year? Even getting a delayed place for summer borns is hard

I am torn on this issue and I think the answer actually depends so much on the child, the area, the options.
I was a bright child to at a primary school in a deprived area, extremely happy and therefore thrived.
On this basis I ended up at a selective school in an affluent area, I didn’t make the most of the excellent opportunity afforded to me, and did disappointingly in all my exams. The wealth, the competition, the struggle to fit in with my peers, all distracted me.
I soon have to make a decision for my child as to what type of school to send them to and I’m completely conflicted. I believe the education, expectation and opportunity at selective schools can create the best environment for children to excel, but if they aren’t happy they won’t and then would be better at a non- selective school where they can thrive, and therefore be inspired to be the best they can be.

More opportunities, better facilities and equipment, more like mind peers interested in achieving, a bit of competition which helps kids work harder.

If you're in a school where there is so much disruption from behaviour issues, how can you learn anything? If your peers don't care about learning, then you might dumb yourself down just to belong.

If you're the sort of household that cares about 'the value of the education' in itself, surely that will be supported in the childs home life and lifestyle anyway. If a child has a thirst for knowledge they are going to find it whatever.

Again the choice being painted here is between private schools and terrible state schools.

That isn't reality, most state schools are good outstanding .

Where do all you private school parents live that you are in an income bracket that allows you to pay for private schools, but all the local schools suffer from the impacts of poverty?
m

I agree with the sentiment that if a child is particularly bright (above average and doesn’t have private tutors etc) and the parents are interested in their education, they’re likely to do well.

The problem with grammar schools is that some kids are hot housed to get in then can’t keep up with the pace as naturally they aren’t as quick. For those children I don’t the experience will be all that great. The fact their parents care about where they go and have paid for a private tutor suggests they will be very well supported and do ok.

The children that will benefit from a grammar school education the most are the ones whose parents don’t really care/push them or aren’t really bothered but the child is particularly bright without the input. They are the ones that would cope naturally with the work despite not having the parental support.

Again with private schools, the reason they do so well is that they’ll ha e very supportive parents. They don’t need to be the brightest children but wit small class sizes etc they’ll do better than they would at a comp.

In a nutshell

Naturally bright- Will do well regardless especially with parental support. Grammar Ed would be most beneficial to the ones where parents don’t input.

Average ability- will do better with parental support. May struggle in a grammar however as there will be a higher proportion of higher ability kids and confidence could be knocked if they can’t keep up.

@Dolorabelle, my almost name twin, you are SO right.

I went to a phenomenal primary school in an extremely deprived area. When I look back, I'm astonished how well it served some very very challenging children. But the handful of middle class children could be tolerated at best by the other kids. I resigned myself to having no friends. I learnt that I was weird and unlikeable and should never ever speak for fear of betraying myself with my hateful accent. (I was nearly ten before I realised my domineering mother wouldn't know if I spoke with a "common accent" at school to avoid getting my head kicked in. She insisted on RP)

Despite the wonderful primary, the secondary it fed into was dire, violent and scary. We moved house so I never went, but my friend at the time intended to survive it by truancy.

malylis, completely agree with your post. The fear of the state system exhibited on here is astonishing and utterly misplaced. The truth is, if they’re honest, most private-school parents would admit that they’re paying for exclusivity and social cachet. And the assumption is that the more you pay, the better something is.

Where I live, it’s common knowledge that it’s the private schools that have a problem with drugs. They’re the kids that can afford them. Our local, pretty prestigious private schools have also recently produced one student who was involved in the far-right plot against Prince Harry and one who was culpable in the Warwick University rape group chat scandal. In another, a teacher was imprisoned for having sex with an underage student. A catalogue of abuse by the Christian Brothers back in the Seventies has recently been revealed in a local school so glorious it looks like a mini Blenheim Palace. Obviously these are extreme cases, but the idea that private schools provide a safer, more salubrious environment for your children is highly questionable.

Where I live, it’s common knowledge that it’s the private schools that have a problem with drugs. They’re the kids that can afford them
Same where I am - a friend's son was expelled for possession from his very well thought of private school near us (police also involved). His mum told us that he had 'fallen in with a bad crowd there'.

I suspect she missed the irony of having chosen private in the first place because of the traveller children in the local state schools...

Well at least he'll still be able to get a well paid job and have a happy fulfilling life

The idea that a bright child will do as well at a shitty comp as a better school is just a lie touted by those who are ideologically wedding to the comp system. It is obvious that all children do best in educational environments that are suited to them with peers who are not disruptive.

The idea is proven by the data though?

Bright, resilient, self-motivated, socially adept kids do well in most schools. Unfortunately, that isn't most kids. The advantage of a 'good' school, is that it usually has more motivation, encouragement, and better facilities. They are often more competitive too, which may/may not be a good thing for your child. Bullying happens everywhere.

So it depends on your child.

The idea that a bright child will do as well at a shitty comp as a better school is just a lie touted by those who are ideologically wedding to the comp system. It is obvious that all children do best in educational environments that are suited to them with peers who are not disruptive.

The idea that state schools are full of disruptive children is a lie touted by those who are, frankly, snobs.

The fear of the state system exhibited on here is astonishing and utterly misplaced

Not all state comprehensive are equal though - even when there's not grammar or selective school siphoning off the top cohort. The best school in this area is a state comprehensive but it's catchment has house prices way our of league.

My children's state comprehensive is is special meaures currently- it's still miles better than our previous catchment school in different part of UK that was never really out of special measures and where I knew many parents with horror stories despite a sucession of head trying to turn it around.

If you've got a whole group of good state comprehensive secondaries - then yes going private may well be more about exclusivity but in some areas it really isn't.

My DD did ok in her comprehensive school.Just as well really as there are no grammar school here,the nearest private school in s 40 miles away not served by any local transport and unaffordable for me.
That means our local schools and colleges are all about equal with a mix of children so people just use their nearest.

Its funny just how many MNetters who privately educate their children live in areas with only shitty comprehensives though.

Way, way more than is representative of the number of special measures or needs to improve comprehensives.

there are no grammar school here,the nearest private school in s 40 miles away not served by any local transport and unaffordable for me.
That means our local schools and colleges are all about equal with a mix of children so people just use their nearest.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we should abolish private schools.

As I said way back, people make up stuff about how terrible their local comp is to justify it to themselves.

The idea that state schools are full of disruptive children is a lie touted by those who are, frankly, snobs.

My kids have complained about disruption- we've had teachers mention class disruption at their school to us. I supect a succesion of supply teachers in some subject areas isn't helping.

It's not in every state school by any means - but it's a problem for my kids.

It's not in every state school by any means - but it's a problem for my kids

DD2 is in a lovely class with only a bit of low level naughtiness/disruption.
DD2 has 3/4 children in her class who are violent and disruptive on a daily basis. Children get punched/kicked etc regularly.
I love their school, her teacher does a great job in bad circumstances, but behaviour most definitely is an issue in her class.