to think many parents who send their children to the lower quality independent schools are so pretentious it is cringeworthy?

[Barrelofloves]

Is it due to insecurity? Because I have found the seriously loaded/titled folk are not like that at all.

Barrelofloves you need to let it go. These people do not want to be your friend, you are not considered good enough for them. Why you would even want to befriend them is beyond me. Make friends with the seriously loaded and titled folk instead .

Dolly, you are right, they do not wish to be my friend and I am not good enough for them, but they frequent quite a lot of the social gatherings I am also invited to.

And you are right again, some of my best and most loyal friends are seriously loaded and titled, (along with others who are anything but)! One of these friends calls these people the 'mwah mwah brigade' and has to put up with them due to her position in the community as lady of the manor.It is physically exhausting to keep up the false pretenses as they are at it with each other all the time, not just with me or her. It is like a form of stress.

It's all so feudal and pathetic in this day and age. But it is a beautiful area so I won't be moving! After 15 years though they are starting to irritate me much more and I no longer want to keep up my own pretense of being polite back.

I

lovin the irony of musing others insecurity but you whine about lower quality independent schools ,as if it matters - do you keep,league table

Sunday Times super head... "You could see the deprivation. Our boys are pale and thin or obese with not much hair. By contrast the grammar school boys are big and hairy and well nourised. They look complteyl different."

Barrelofloves - where is it that you live? Just the region will do. Bits of what you say are sounding a tad too familiar. I hasten to add that I am not directly involved in such 'feuding' but I can see it going on around me. You are probably well enough established after 15 years that it would do you no harm whatsoever to speak your mind - in the nicest possible way of course.

Xenia....and your point is?

that Dickensian description of state school kids is risible - bet they had squints and steal yer handbag them ruffians

in contrast to the umm hairy posh rugger buggers.gosh bet they scrub up well

It is a very sensible new state school head in a very rough area just comparing the two. What's my point? I just read it and it reminded me about my comments above about children looking better in private schools but this comment is comparing state and state - but grammar state (ie middle class more money state) and very very poor state.

I daren't give my area away as it is underpopulated and anyway, a large racing/military community should give plenty of clues.

Xenia, seeing unkempt state school children, doesn't that make you want to help/sponsor one? I just don't get this lack of empathy.

The women I mentioned who suffered domestic abuse but are struggling to study now are far more interesting to talk to than my local mwah mwah set. Against all the odds they are motivated to make a better life for themselves and their dc and are working towards qualifications to work with disabled/special needs children. How much more worthy that is than a career based on self interest.

They have a local dialect, lots of tattoos, live in the most deprived area of a town quite far from here, and in general have had a rough life. But they are warm, compassionate and trying to make the most of their situation.

Maybe you are Xenia's celtic alter ego, SM!

All kinds of people are interesting although those of high and low social status who have a low IQ I never find worth talking to for very long as it just gets boring and banal. And for the record I have met plenty of posh people in that category.

When I see children unkempt? Like most people I don't want anyone to suffer but that wasn't really what we were talking about on this thread. I would certainly pay to ensure my children weren't educatd with damaged or disrupted or low IQ children or even children who are of a different sex.

And I most certainly want my dc to be educated with a cross section of society. They are bright and intelligent and certainly don't need mumsy cotton wool wrapping heaven forbid!

What rot about damaged dc/low iqs etc!There are plenty of damaged dc at public schools just like every where else, you could even say by being divorced you are condemning your own children to statistically being more likely to have failed marriages.

I would say my own dc would be damaged if I chose to work solidly over the weekends rather than spend cosy time with them.

But each to their own.

Well I rarely work solidly over weekends because I like to spend time with my children but the point about North London Collegiate and schools like that, Manchester grammar etc is they are much much more mixed ethcnically and religiously and don't attract posh people at all than many of the state schools locally. Because in the SE richer people buy expensive houses and segregate their chidlren by house price whichi s much more devisive and means children are with whites often just of the same religion. It's a fascinating result. Compare state secondaries in Hackney with say Buckinghams and you'll see the result. Whereas at Habs in my daughter's year she and 2 others only out of 4 classes had four English born grandparents! A wonderful mixture which you can only buy in the private sector if you want the stability of classes with children whose parents are very committed to education and the chidlren have a very hith level entry IQ and most children applying fail to get in.

I would rate emotional intelligence higher than standard IQs where a child who is kind, helpful and compassionate would rate highly. Too many people with a high IQ have a selfish trait with it otherwise they would not be so motivated by greed and self interest only. I would be devastated if my dc had such traits.

There are very thick people who are kind and those who are dreadful. It's the same if people are clever. There are fat people who are lovely and fat ones who are awful. You can't generalise although those who are fat or stupid or unsuccessful usually comfort themselves by saying those richer or prettier or thinner or higher IQ than I am are dreadful people.

People with a really high IQ may not necessarily be attracted to making a lot of money anyway. Again you can't generalise. Best of all to have a very clever but very helpful child who is a success and lovely to have around. Why not go for all the talents the good fairy hands out at birth?

There are children in my dc's class at primary school who have Down syndrome and another who is autistic and these are popular children. Other children in the class help them and my own dc have not suffered having such children in their class, achieving SATS level 5 is testamount to that.

After all, the brain doesn't just need to be stretched academically to help a child become a well rounded individual. Being able to 'get along' with others I would say is far more important.

You're on a hiding to nothing here barrelofloves, especially with the mention of Down's syndrome. I'd give up now

My baby sister had down's but that doesn't mean I believe in mixed ability teaching. It's the selective schools which do best for children at all ages and levels. Surely the fun of a class for a clever child is the bouncing ideas off each other just as most of us with an IQ over X probably would find a dinner very dull with someone with an IQ of 90 just as people with IQcs of 100 would probably find what I'm interested in as dull as ditchwater. I sit sometimes and I'm not that bright waiting for people's words to flow, ideas to move and I just get utterly bored and so do bright children. The state system seems to think they should be segregated by IQ and streamed at 11 but not before. Why is that? Why is the private system on the whole so far ahead because of selection and streaming. I write this as a parent who has had children in various streams at schools and it is great for the slower learners to be with those who are at the same level as they are. Much easier to each chidlren who all work at the same pace too. this is self evidence the world over except in the socialist republic of fairyland which is state education in the UK.

Message withdrawn

Xenia- of course the state sector splits pupils into ability groups when appropriate. They may not be officially 'streamed' but they are certainly given different work related to their ability. My own daughter who is on the cusp of two school years but should be the oldest in the class is actually taught with the year above (and has always been) because the school feel that this is where she fits in best.

they might be in your school Louby - but there are lots of threads on MN where posters say their children are not properly setted at secondary school, nver mind at primary.

I might be going against the grain here but tbh I don't think the be all and end all is in the teaching and selection.

Personally speaking and in the case of my dc, if they are interested they/we go into a subject in greater depth by reading independently, going to museums, Googling it etc, talking about it.

I did not need my parents forking out a fortune for a private education for academic purposes, I was more than capable of getting a text book and learning what I needed from it and getting straight As. As far as I'm concerned, my dc do not need it either. I'd rather send money via direct debit to the NSPCC than spend it on my dc.

I was in my element at college where I was able to sit in the library being able to peruse 40 books (all the books on the reading list!)per tutorial. It was hard at first because I had to look up many of the words in the dictionary as my own family were far from being intellectual and we were not allowed boks at home.

Luckily, my own dc do not have that obstacle to learning.

Lots of little state primaries provide a warm, nurturing environment to learning, with mixed ages and streamed according to ability as far as which table they are sitting at.

I think you will find they are fabulous places to develop a love of learning.

Litchick- you may be right. I know we are v lucky in this particular school. It has a really excellent headteacher and a warm, nurturing environment as barrel said. I am not against streaming at secondary level but I don't think it should be done in a formal way in a primary school. So much of the learning at primary school is not purely academic. I also think it is wrong to set such young children in an obvious fashion as it can certainly affect their confidence and self esteem.

But if there are 6 applicants per place at 4 or 7 and only those with a high IQ get in everyone in the class is fairly bright and the children are stretched better and enjoy lessons better. Also they all tend to work to a higher level/pace which is why many selective private primaries are a year or two ahead of the state system and those children seem to be given an advantage for life which continues into secondary school. I also think a child at 5 who "fails" to get into a school hardly need know about it so isn't damaged by it whereas one at 11 with all that pressure some silly parents put on the child and fuss over the next school - by then it's harder.

I see what you are saying Xenia but you are only talking about a tiny fraction of the population, ie only those that attend are private sector educated from 4 and only those that attend a selective pre-prep. (As far as I am aware most pre preps are non selective).
I admit that I do want my children to be 'stretched' but I think that primary education is about more than just academic 'pushing'. As far as I am concerned passing exams, etc can wait until senior level and even then it is somewhat over rated. It isn't even very meaningful nowadays as such a high percentage of candidates are achieving top grades. (I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread).