If you could afford to send your kids to a private school, would you?

[juicychops]

or would you choose for them to go to a 'normal' state school?

just curious what your responses will be

Confidence, you are talking about funding now. 50yrs ago, grammar schools most certainly received better funding, attracted better qualified staff and had the most up to date facilities. I fear a return to that if we went back to a national grammar system rather than the regional ones we have now were LAs offer comps as an alternative to grammar schools.

LeQueen, I am not saying that grammar schools failed those children but the grammar system.

My point was that Mumsnet is awash will well educated, articulate parents who would like to see a return to that system. But it would be the grammar schools where their children ended up, not the lower tier which historically was poorly funded and where in many cases enthusiastic children were just ignored. There was no equality about the old grammar system. The real myth is that it was different but equal when the reality was quite different.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can ethically object to private schools on the ground that income should play no part then hail grammar schools when they know full well that in that system brains are what 'buy' what is arguably a better education.

OK I see what you mean.

I wasn't around at the time, and wasn't in this country until well after, but my understanding of the history is that you're absolutely right: the way the tripartite system was implemented basically took great care of the grammar school kids and never got around to thinking too much about the others. Which sucked.

I'd doubt, however, that that's what many pro-grammar parents here would advocate when they say they are pro-grammar. Even in fully selective areas like Kent now, where the widespread existence of grammar schools means that the others really are secondary moderns, not comps, the schools are equally funded. There is no bias of funding towards grammar schools, so there is no reason to say, as you seemed to be doing, that those advocating grammar schools don't care about what funding goes to the others.

Hear hear, LeQueen. And any such system these days could be modified so there was more flexibility or modern-day tests for those on the borderline.

"And any such system these days could be modified so there was more flexibility or modern-day tests for those on the borderline"

The whole problem is that there is no such accurate test. If the same children take multiple IQ tests there is quite a wide spread of results, some do well on one, some on another - the order they are taken in has an effect, but lots of the varience is due to different tests suiting different children or 'having a good/bad day effects. And while IQ (assuming you could measure it accurately which you can't) correlates to how well children will do at grammar it's not a very good correlation - work ethic, motivation, early/late development etc have a very large role too and these simply can't be measured. So you are taking children at 11 and saying this is your path and this is yours based on not very reliable data. The question isn't whether 1000s of lower class children were lifted out of poverty or not, but more if you'd taken a different set of children based on a different test on a different day (OK the sets would probably overlap a bit, but large chunks wouldn't) then the outcome for the 'chosen' would be largely the same, but how is that fair?

The grammar system did fail the pupils who failed to get in because very often the other alternative was dire.

We live in a grammar area and I moved here with an open mind about the grammars, in fact that is not quite true I moved here thinking that dd would probably get into a grammar and that would not be a bad thing. We were under a lot of pressure to send dd to an independent school, being an only a few relatives offered to pay the fees and extras in full. We managed to ease this pressure by moving to a grammar school area.

However the more I learn about the grammar system the less I would want my daughter to go. There are very bright students that go but there are also quite a few very average children who get in because of a middle class gloss and intensive coaching. The facilities are poor, the staffing is very mixed in quality and the teaching dull.

The choice will be dd's but I hope she chooses the comprehensive.

Should we not be working hard to ensure that all children have an excellent education rather than just the bright ones. Most schools teach by ability, I teach my top sets in a different manner to my low ability ones, there needs can be met in the same building.

These can be assessed in an interview.

"work ethic, motivation, early/late development etc have a very large role too and these simply can't be measured"

gelatinous - I actually agree with a lot of what you say, particularly regarding the problems with IQ tests, defining "intelligence" and the fact that it's not the best indicator of future success anyway. However it's important to realise that "taking children at 11 and saying this is your path and this is yours", is not nearly so much the case as it used to be. All we are really doing is making restrictions upon the schools that they can attend for the next five years. There are kids who fail the 11+, go to secondary modern, do really well and then go to a grammar 6th form, or other 6th form followed by university and a profession. Or just leave school and do well in business or whatever. I know quite a few very successful people from precisely this background, including a headteacher, an engineer turned property developer and a multi-millionaire business tycoon.

I don't really get what people fear is being "denied" to children who don't get into grammar school. They still get school, as well funded as anyone else. Their schools are set up with a greater focus on vocational subjects, but more academic subjects are still available, and if they were in a comp they would still be pushed towards doing the subjects that are most suitable for them (and possibly prevented from doing A Levels in subjects they don't get the required GCSE grades for anyway).

It seems like the objection is largely a matter of principle, that well-meaning adults don't like the fact of us openly admitting that at a certain age, some kids have reached the point where they're ready and suitable for a highly focused academic education and others haven't. But at the comp I went to, those in the bottom sets knew perfectly well why they were there and what the grading system was all about. I really don't think many kids fall for adults' pussyfooting around on this.

yes
would if I could
can't afford to
probably couldn't find one to take dc1 despite his high IQ
he has been utteerly failed by the state system

The problem is that children that live in a grammar school area these days ( I am talking here about where I am from, from experience ) , if not academically gifted enough to get into grammar school or if their parents can't afford independent school fees, have the "choice" of comprehensives that are, quite frankly, dire. They are not marvellous secondary modern facilities where the little darlings are encouraged in their sporting or musical abilities.

They are sinks of crap, for the children who don't cut the grammar mustard or have parents who can pay the fees.

LeQueen, I'm not disputing the fact that lots of bright kids from working class homes passed the 11+. Both my parents did. That's not the point I was making. What I'm trying to say, which is pretty much what Twinkly said, is that for those who didn't pass, the system was for the most part, dire.

Theoretically, those kids recieved the same level of education but just with a different, more practical slant. The reality was that a sizable majority were just 'kept' in school until leaving age witht he hope that they would pick up something practical and useful along the way. There was no innovation or fostering of enthusiasm. They were not nice places to be.

I don't understand why children cannot be taught at their own ability in one building. It suggests the teachers are not capable of differentiating.

Differentiating is of course good if you have to teach mixed-ability classes. But consider this - you're attending adult education courses to learn a foreign language. Would you rather be in a class with others at the same level, or with some people who are far ahead or behind you?

But most schools do not teach by mixed ability, so children will - for the most part - be in a class with people of a similar ability.

I am not advocating mixed ability teaching. What I question is the need for different schools. Do clever/coached children need a different type of chair/ brick/ window?

differentiating is hard though isn't it? how do teachers find the time space and quiet to do it

answer is they don't (not partic dissing teachers here how can they in some schools?)

I thought that was one of the issues with comps the average do well, the bright and the other end of the scale do poorly
am I wrong?

Differentiating when you already have children taught in sets is not difficult and it is part of a teacher's duty. I do it day in and day out and am just a bog standard teacher in a bog standard school.

One of the issues with differentiation within a single school, as opposed to selective education, is that it requires schools to be much larger in order to work effectively. Which may be a good thing for some children, but for others it might be a disaster. My DD is in a huge primary school that works in sets for English. She is fine in a large school but for some children the sheer numbers would be overwhelming.

good for you twinkly however my personal ecperience is different

dd1 started school with a class full of children who didn't speak English she twiddled her thumbs and learnt how to daydream/misbehave

dd2 had a brilliant teacher who had 3 of them counting backwards in 10's from 100 or whatever

she has now been effectively moved up a year (mixed classes)

it goes without saying that dd1 is much brighter

dd2 had a newly qualified teacher whereas dd1 was closer to retirement if that makes any difference?

Confidence, plenty might fail the 11 plus but be capable of top grades at GCSE. I think the tracking system sometimes makes us believe that these will always be beyond them. Cognitive tests given in Y6 and Y7 in english and maths are used to predict grades at 16 (even in art and drama) this might make things tricky for late developers. I am told that late bloomers would be spotted and appropriately accelerated but I am not so confident. As Boaler says 'the set or stream that students are placed into at a very young age will almost certainly dictate the opportunities they receive for the rest of their lives' (1997).

Late to this thread, but answering the OP.

We can't really afford it but send our children to independent schools anyway. They are in three different independent schools.