Send average/above average child to very academic school ?

[Gunznroses]

Or to just academic school. I come from a culture where its the norm to send your dc to a school as academically possible with he belief that "iron sharpens iron", it worked very well for me and my siblings.

But in U.K it seems quite normal to send an average child or in some cases very academic child to a not so academic school in order that they may "shine" and grow in confidence.

My worry with this is, fine it may boost a child's confidence whilst at school but what happens once they leave this environment and enter the real world and then realise they're not as wonderful as they thought ? Does confidence not take a huge knock ? On the other hand if an average child sent to an academically challenging school spent their time feeling mediocre, when they leave isnt it a boost to suddenly realise they are quite capable ? I really dont know which one is better at this point.

Im hoping people will come along and share their own experiences and what happened once dc left their environments, did your very popular prize winning child leave their secondar only to realise they couldnt compete as well outside ? Did your mediocre child leave their highly academic/ selective school and realise "Im quite something afterall" ?

Hi Gunz, I think what you're asking is one of the toughest decisions a parent has to make. It so much depends on the nature of the child, and to a lesser extent, the ethos of the school, academics aside, and the culture into which they can and should do their personal best in all things that matterthey become adults. So many variants.

My own belief is that children must be equipped with the confidence to believe they can and should do their personal best in all things that matter. I don't think less academic schools encourage this. That said, I think it's a huge mistake to send a child to a school where they will be lolling at the bottom of the class, however hard they try. That wrecks their confidence. So: the right school is one where they notably succeed when they make a big effort.

"so the right school is one where they succeed when they make a big effort"

which brings us back to my question, because how do you meausure effort ? It depends on the overall standards of the school doesnt it ? If standards are low, then little effort seems "big" vice versa.

DD1 is at a very academic school. She was at a selective junior school, before that, but most of her friends were not. Many of them have had a huge shock, going from being the smartest person in their class, to being one of many clever girls. This hasn't happened to such a degree with my DD, because she came from a selective environment.

If your DC is very competitive, then a super selective may not work for her/him, because she/he may feel inadequate if she/ he is not always at the top of the class.

If she/he is confident in her/his own abilities, but is willing to accept that others may excel in other subjects, then she/he should not feel inadequate. But the fact that others are achieving in your DC's weaker subjects shows that it is possible, and this should encourage a child who is confident in themself to strive to attain a higher level, in the areas that she/he is weaker.

You know your own child. Speak to parents of both schools, and see what they say. This is far more useful than studying league tables.

(I hope this makes sense. I've just read over it, and it does sound a bit like gobbledygook.)

my ds is in a grammar school, in year 7 he got overall 82% in Maths, they aren't in sets, they are using y8 books
I bumped into a mum of a boy who is in an average comp school, she was beaming as her son got 94% in Maths, he is in top set
that boy was much weaker than my son

so given that knowledge I guess my DS would have gotten near 100% in a comp school as opposed to 82% in a Grammar school

I don't know if my son is as academic as other boys in his school, he isn't top in any subject AFAIK - he is an all rounder (well apart from sport where he is well below average :) ), so for him I was looking for a school which would appreciate his love for Art and Drama

I knew he might have been bullied for his hobbies in a comp school (musical theatre, piano, drama, art) - in his school they are looking for well rounded boys

my advice?
if you want good education - look for a secondary school with the following criterias

• any suitable child can take Physics as a separate scienece GSCE - this I've found a sign of a good school
• good Art department (to cater for kids liek my son :) ), you would be surprised how few boys only schools have half decent Art departments
• look for presence of school plays - again it shows school's commitment to good all round education
• don't take into account A-levels results at all - kids move between schools etc.

being top in an average school can have good impact on a child - school would cherish that student :)

OP you seem to be assuming that an average or above average child would get into a super selective school. MN is full of threads about DC not getting into these schools whether they be state or independent. The completion for places is becoming increasingly fierce from reading various threads on here even those who "pass" entrance exams especially for grammars are not always getting places.

Secondly as someone who has a DS at a super selective I do think it must be very demoralising to be consistently in the bottom third of the intake. IME children in these type of schools are very aware of their position in the class as are parents and although some may rise to the challenge many may view it as pointless and not bother loose confidence in their own abilities.

I don't overthink it. I simply put my DC into whichever is the best school academically that they're capable of getting a place at. On the basis that if they get a place, they should be fine.

I don't think any of them are stunted by virtue of not necessarily being 'top'. They enjoy the company of their peers, even if some are cleverer. That's life. Quite healthy, I'd have thought.

We have the most measured and graded children in our history, regardless of the type of school they go to. The chances of children not realising where they are in the pecking order until they enter the real world seems fairly remote to me.

The most academic schools simply do not take average children. However, I do wonder how lower ability children get on in schools that are supposed to be comprehensive but, for one reason or another, have only 1-5% of level 3 children on entry.

1. I don't believe most parents have much choice about how academic their child's secondary options are or not. So I don't accept most parents even have this dilemma.

2. DH & I both were high achievers at mediocre secondaries & went onto be high achievers at Uni. So I don't relate to the idea that being Big Fish in Small Pond sets you up for low work ethic or exaggerated ideas of your own ability. Similar experiences elsewhere in my family.

I come from a culture which believes very strongly that people are what they make of themselves. I see an insidious side to this because if you fail then it is YOUR FAULT that you didn't work harder. I find British fatalism by turns annoying & refreshingly realistic. There's a reason my culture has very high levels of OCD-type & Eating Disorders behaviours.

But agree OP's dilemma depends on the child. Some kids rise to a challenge (DS1), some are far better off working within their comfort zones (DS2).

If by some miracle an 'average' child got into a super-selective, i wouldn't wish to be them. At my super-selective, those consistently in the bottom groups/getting bottom marks came away underperforming and with low self-esteem compared to their real abilities - was talking about this to one of said girls on facebook, and I think she still feels harmed by the school's very high standards.

Unless your 'average' child is v resilient emotionally, I think it's probably better for them to be near the top of a less selective school. But a child who is top in one area but average or lower in other areas might be fine in a very academic school - they can still maintain their self-esteem in one subject and not mind that they are bottom in others.

Disagree, Yellowtip, that this is 'life' - in real life, there are lots of people who are less intelligent than those of 'average or above average' ability - but top schools can actually make those same kids feel thick! Whilst it is good for everyone to learn to deal with other people being cleverer than them in some ways, I'd guess it's quite hard for an 11 year old when everyone else is better than them at all subjects... i doubt your dcs fell into this category.

Although that said, it's hard to know whether your 'average or above average' child at 11 is going to blossom into v high achieving child by 18, in which case, sending them to the school with the best results might make sense.

I suppose it's good to be honest with yourself here - all parents believe their child is brilliant, I suppose.

That said, new rules this year should make the job much easier for you, as all pupils will get the results (for state school exams anyway) BEFORE making the applications. So apply for all the exams and see if your child comes near the top, just scrapes in or fails.

Then you'll have a much better idea of what school would suit than a bunch of random strangers on mumsnet can give you.

The general lesson that there are almost always going to be others better than you is life though bread.

Actually mine do have a range of ability and some are clearly nearer the bottom in terms of marks than the top. But each one has benefited nevertheless and found at least one area where they seem to be good. The family dynamics are better served by them all going to the same school though, it has to be said.

I went to a superselective grammar, a lot of my peers have done exceedingly well in real life and were not necessarily top of the class or peer group, we all had different strengths and weaknesses.

I was one of those who was a gifted child and landing in this school was a bit of a shock, I was top in certain subjects but definitely struggled in others and remember feeling really thick sometimes.

I left school feeling mediocre and with ok grades but soon realised in real life how well equipped and well educated I was in comparison to a lot of people and this has massively helped my confidence in my career. For example being able to hit the ground running, absorb huge amounts of information in very little time, whizz through professional exams. I owe all that to my school. I would choose the same for my children unless they were really struggling.

My DSs are in a selective and very academic infant school which feeds to the junior and senior school which are also selective and highly academic.

I would say that whilst mine are fine I really do feel for those who are struggling to keep up. These are children who, in a different environment would be at the top of the class and would have the confidence and self esteem that come from being in that position. Instead they are having to have extra support and worst ase will be told that they cannot progress to the next school and must leave their friends and find another school. That is incredibly harsh for a seven year old. They all passed the entrance assessment in the first place and so it isn't the case that if they get in they will be fine.

My view is that you should be absolutely certain that a selective and highly academic school is right for your child before starting them there.

It sounds easy Virgil. But tell me, how can you be 'absolutely certain' a selective and highly academic school is right aged 10? Mine aren't all top of the tree but I'm still completely happy with my decision. What I am now absolutely certain of is that the education they are getting has done and is doing them far, far more good than harm. Tbh the fact that they got into the school and that it's known to be good gives them a level of confidence in the first place.

I happen to think the exam is a pretty good test. It's the exception at our school for students who've passed to flounder so badly that they need to leave. Very rare, in the years that mine have been at their school.

Yellowtip - for me it was simple - do they like doing homework, whether interested in it or not?
if they do - they will do well in a selective school

like in life/work you sometimes need to get on with the stuff you don't like to move on to that you are good at and enjoy doing

"My DSs are in a selective and very academic infant school"

Such a very sad sentence to read [Sad]

I also disagree (strongly) with selection at infant school. I am adamant that schools cannot really tell what a child will turn out when they are 3 or 4. I have seen it in my own children what a huge difference (developmentally) a couple of years make at that age.

My dad has taught in secondary schools for 40 years and says that even at 11 you cannot really tell what a child will be like, especially with boys. He says that boys can be still very immature and appear uninterested in education at that stage but he himself and his colleagues were proved wrong so many times that they always kept an open mind. I hate the way children are labelled academic or non-academic so young!!! It becomes a self fulfilling profecy...

Don't be sad seeker. My DSs are thriving at the school. They are bright and confident and the school is nurturing and supportive and completely geared up to ensuring that boys are eager and motivated to learn by teaching things that boys love. All topics are things that would interest them as small boys they spend half their time outdoors and they do masses of sport I have nothing but praise for the school and my DSs are very lucky to go there.

At the same time there are boys who are struggling to keep up and whilst they are allowed to go at their own pace and they have extra support, I do feel for them since they are bright boys, they are just in an environment where everyone is very bright and so in comparison they are not as strong.

Yellowtip I agree its impossible to tell. I think it's just a case of constantly reassessing and checking that they are thriving. Getting in is a good sign and then you just have to be prepared to reassess if problems arise and it's damaging their confidence. Mine are only 7 and 5 though.

My son was very academic and went to a comprehensive school rather than the grammar because we all felt it was right for him. He has always been in top sets and had children to compete with and has not always been the top of every subject. ( his reports have always given the top, average and lowest levels achieved at key stage 3)

My daughter is also bright but perhaps a little less so and has times when she does not put in the work. It has been made clear to her that if she does not work hard enough or her behaviour slips she will need to go to the grammar. ( reliant of course on spaces. If she became really lazy or badly behaved we may need to consider private)

So there is no one answer for every child.

What do people mean by "very academic" when taking about a child?

By "very academic" when referring to a child, I infer that the child is ahead of his/her peers in some measurable fashion (reading/writing age, maths achievement) and also, particularly when referring to a very young child, very classroom ready (emotional maturity or just being docile).

Thanks for all your responses, this is the first time ive been able to get on MN since i last posted. Just to clarify, i posted in the belief that there are many children who although not terribly academic manage to get into very academic schools, these are usually the ones that end up in the lower groups, this will not always be the case, but some children just manage to 'scrape through'.

Although i have a dc of secondary school age my question was only partly do with dc but more generally questionning a long held philosophy ive had on education, as im beginning to think it may be slightly flawed.

A poster here (sorry i cant scroll all the way back to find the name) mentioned feeling mediocre throughout but then realising once she left that she was quite capable. Nobody has mentioned wether their high flying dc in their not so academic school, entered the real world with a bump ?

OP if the school is 'not so academic', being 'high flying' within it may not mean much.

For myself (and my DC), I'd far rather be a little fish in a big pond than the other way round. It's about people.

"little fish in a big pond" yes thats always been my philosophy as eventually you have to leave your cosy environment and compete in the big wide world, but more and more i'm hearing both in rl and on MN people deciding to send their average child or sometimes even very bright academic dc to a school that will give them an easy ride inorder that they can "shine", boost their confidence etc, these are of course good things but i had always thought this might have consequences in the end but I'm hoping to be more enlightened.