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

You have a very dim view of children who aren't academically able, don't you? Do you really think that if they have to so much as be in the same building with bright kids, they are going to follow them home and snigger at them? In which case, is it best if they never have to be under the same roof, in case the thicker ones get violent?

If you are setting then there isn't going to be one top set with the same 30 kids in - some overlap, yes, but IME it is quite possible to be in set 1 for some subjects and 2 or 3 for others.

It's a bit depressing the way that you seem so sure the less academically able are going to behave like that, to be honest!

I think, LeQueen, that they would not even give her a second glance! People move in their own social circles and at the comp with sets I attended, there was no bullying and very little interaction between girls or boys in different sets. We knew each others' names, did registratoin and would do PE together, but that was it. The 'b' group children would pick on the 'b' group wimps, nerds or creeps, and the 'a' groups had their own pecking order, and it was not to do with academic ability. IT was much more cruel than that and tended to be based on physical appearance, weediness or having a funny voice...

I would not want to judge every school by my own experience of course, but I find it quite sweet that you are so concerned about your clever dd when in fact she would probably be fine!

Sorry I meant 'it' as in any bullying, not Information Technology. That had not been invented...

My 'clever' dd has been (in the three and a bit years she's been at school)
mildly and intermittently ribbed for having curly hair and a (very very VERY relatively) 'posh' accent, and for being flat chested. She was also mercilessly, cruelly and nastily 'ousted' from the alpha group of girls last year, having fallen out of favour for no reason she's entirely sure about..... who are all in the top sets, the AGT programmes, the twilight 'extra' groups, and the sports teams with her.

But Lequeen that's 2 girls, in year 6 - you only need to look at active conversations on any normal day to see that girls in year 5 and 6 seem to make it a practice to be mean to each other periodically, for any amount of silly, petty spiteful reasons! I think it's unfair to extrapolate from that that clever children mustn't be exposed to the less able, ever!

Well but if that happens where there are grammars, doesn't that suggest that the grammar system makes divisions worse, not better?

Anyway - of the issues - both minor and more upsetting - my bright daughter has had at comp, none of them has arisen from her being clever.

LeQueen in a proper comp there would be lots of very bright DC. You make it sound as if one DC is going to stand out. Bullies bully for all sorts of reasons....redheads, wrong school bag, free school meals, funny surname anything. I'm sure some nasty pieces of work follow home the private/grammar blazers and sneer at them. Better they all wear the same blazer IMO. And of course everyone gets to know all the local trouble makers from school and know who to steer clear of when they go for an evening out. They have to leave the safety of school eventually!

Sorry there is always rivalry between schools and your last post just gives more weight to the case against segregated education! We were supposed to be a 'posh' school as we had previously been a grammar school and were in the better end of town, but there were still around 40% of children doing mostly CSEs rather than O levels in most subjects. We would not usually bump into children from other schools in uniform as we were all quite far from the town centre, but there were always rumours of potential fights or trouble from the 'rougher' schools in town. That's basically just 'tribalism' which exists between neighbouring towns, neighbourhoods, football teams, etc etc

Sorry - I read 'last year at juniors' the wrong way, didn't I?

I still disagree that if you had schools where everyone was of the same academic ability, there would be no bullying or exclusion. Until you can buy them all whatever hoody is in vogue at any given moment, and make sure they all grow breasts at the exact same time, and that no-one has an embarrassing mother or is crap at running or whatever.... it's not going to work.

And to say that the bright must be separated or they will be bullied just doesn't help anyone. It tells the bright kids that the less academic would set upon them given half the chance, and the less able that they'll be happier if they never have to contend with anyone passing exams anywhere near them - and I think it just increases fear and suspicion for everyone.

Excellent post, Elaine.

LeQueen I would bet it would be the same boys fighting, they would not be bothered about the 'clever' ones.

The increase in fighting might say something about what you do to a boy's image of himself and his place in the world when you tell him at 11 that he's failed.

If on the other hand they were at the same school, maybe there'd be a chance they might play on the same teams as the GS types - or be in the same registration group - or go on the same school trips - and stop seeing them as irredeemably 'other'?

Idealistic I know, but perhaps no more so than thinking that a cohort of exclusively bright children won't ever find ways to make each other unhappy.

Sorry LeQueen I think you have got this so wrong and a good comp can have strict uniform standards and very little fighting. A school which has had all the brightest ones removed from the system is going to be a tougher environment for those in the middle ground in particular and I just think it is plain wrong!

Le Queen I don't think you subscribe to the 'learnable intelligence' idea :). To you it seems 'you can't get out what God didn't put in' and children are either clever or they're not and we can tell this about them very young?

I changed dramatically in that my 'cleverness' (as you see it) probably increased five fold between the ages of 11 and 14. As I made new connections and was exposed to more interesting & challenging material my intellect grew. This can happen, but not if it's widely assumed intelligence is set in stone.

Separating children - be they bright, "practical", or have moneyed parents is a big mistake, IME.

Like I said way backthread, I was terrified of huge swathes of the population at age 14 when I was transferred from a boarding school to a comprehensive.

Sheltering children is very wrong socially on many levels, IMO.

I think I am actually more against the idea of grammar schools than I am private schools.

If a parent chooses to pay for private education with their money then I see that as their right. Any advantage they might gain over other children as a result is unfortunate for those who can't access it but not ultimately unfair as we all choose different things to spend ou money on and different ways to raise our children.

But state schools are paid for by all of us and there I feel that all should have as equal an experience as possible there. No, a true meritocracy is never going to be popular due to differences of catchment. But certain children should never intentionally be given a state education of a higher quality at the expense of others imo.

Regarding playing to strenghts, it does not follow that a child who does not perform well academically is going to necessarily be skilled in other, practical, areas. Again, it tends to be the case that the two go together. If a child is weak at basic literacy and numeracy he or she is also likely to struggle to get a job and in practical skills as well. You cannot just write off academic skills for that child but instead support him or her to develop these skills since they are essential. That is not to say that every school should teach every child Latin and Physics. Every child should be taught English and Maths and then there should be room for some children to choose more vocational subjects as appropriate. This is the system we already have.