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" ?

Perhaps not even compete. just co-exist.

I think it depends on the child.

When DS was at pre-school, and obviously very academic (able pre-school reader, able to manipulate large numbers etc) all my concerns about him at school were about him being stretched academically.

When, in Year 1, he became extremely stressed, became a school-induced selective mute and his ASD traits began to dominate his and our lives, I came to realise that was not what was most important after all. I HEd him for a while, and had I continued to do so have no doubt that would have maximised his academic progress, at least in the short to medium term. But as I said, my priorities were rather different by then. When he re-entered a new school, in a new area, I looked for one that looked at him as a whole human being, and was prepared to accept him 'differences' and all. It wasn't the school I would have sent him to had we moved to that area before he started school - I am sure that I would have fought to get him into the more obviously 'academically rigorous' school down the road.

DS is about to leave at the end of Year 6. He is predicted Levels 5 /5 / 6 in his SATs. More marvellously, he is 'above expected level for his age in SPEAKING and listening', something I thought I would never see again. The school has never put him on the SEN register despite information from his previous school - 'it's OK', I remember the head saying 'if he needs help, we'll put him on it. But it's different here, so he may be different too'.

So character as well as academic ability have to be taken into account - and DS's academic achievement have certainbly not suffered unduly from being at a slightly different type of school.

Ah. For me, academic means mor then that. Both of my children are advanced in terms of school work- ds is expected to get 665 in his year 6 SATS, and dd is on track for excellent GCSE. Results. But I would 't say with of them are "academic". Neither of them are natural students, they don't choose to do homework unprompted or devote their free time to learning ancient greek. They would very rarely choose to do intellectual things in preference to football or watching Friends. So not "academic" in my book.

I was pretty much the brightest at my very ordinary comp. and failed my first year at University. (the one thing I wasn't top in was maths and most students had done further maths).

Yes it was a rude awaking being faced with tutorial sheets I hadn't a clue how to do. No way did I have the work ethic to try and learn the things I'd left school without knowing.

I changed to the science I had the equivalent of A* in and sailed to a 2i without doing any work.

Would I have worked harder and got a first had I been to a highflying grammar. I don't know (our area didn't have them).

Certainly DH, who did go to grammar school, is harder working than me.

He obsessively has to learn all there is to know about any technical thing that crosses his horizon. He is utterly useless at doing nothing, reading fiction or watching junk TV.

Is that because of his school, academic teacher parents or a faintly AS temperament that finds things way easier than people? I don't know.

DD2 is going to the less academic school. Yes it's logistically far easier, but also she is exactly the sort of child who likes to shine. Academically she would hold her own at the grammar, but I fear she'd give up ever extra curricular activity.

Faced with girls with grade 4+ music, who's larger primaries and private schools take sport seriously and many of whom do stage coach I think she would just say they'll never choose me.

The comp. does art, drama and music very seriously indeed, but in an inclusive way. It doesn't assume you've done lots already.
There are orchestras, bands and choirs for all standards.

Many of the feeder schools are tiny so they don't expect them to already have played much netball, hockey etc.

Clearly only time will tell if we've made the right choice, but in the mean time she, hopefully won't drown in HW.

(well she will drown in history HW, but you can't win them all).

So do people just mean "above average" when they say "academic" then?

I must admit that I find it very odd that so many DC need to be top in order to be happy. That their self esteem will not survive going to a school where other pupils are more able.

But then apparently there are lots of DC who willbe crushed if they discover other pupils are faster or richer or generally more talented .

Agree with seeker in what I think an academic child is.

Dd went to normal non selective schools schools-was in top streams.

She had the choice to try for grammar as there is a few out of the county but she chose to stay with her friends. Less able children in her yr went to the grammar and I remember being surprised that they got in tbh.

Roll on a few yrs and she has finished her first yr at Sheffield Uni. Out of 10 flat mates there are 3 from state non selective schools. Her 3 best friends went to selective independents and all failed the first yr. They did no work , didn't attend lectures and openly admitted to dd that they were pushed and cajoled in their schooling and have found it extremely hard to buckle down at uni. I'm sure they'll improve now they've had the shock though

Initially dd was quite intimidated by the fact that most people she met were from selective schools but gradually she has realised she is as bright as them . I think dd has always had a slight inferiority complex intellectually-wise and is only just realising her potential. This is more to do with her personality rather than her schooling .I often wonder how she would have got on in a grammar school environment. Sorry no real answers for you OP .It is up to individual children.

I went to a school full of extremely bright children and always felt thick and I would say in retrospect that I under achieved because of this. When I left I was surprised at how able I was compared to others.

seeker are you conflating academic with intellectual though, which is another step up.

Agree with word. It's a recipe for misery and burn out.

Are academic and intellectual on the same continuum then? I don't think they are- although I would have to think about why not!

Yes I do think DD2 would opt out of extra curricular stuff if she felt intimidated by everyone else being "better" than her.
Even if better simply means they have done more of the activity at primary.

She doesn't share her sisters, have a go and if I'm shit at it it doesn't matter attitude. Nor unlike her sister does she have one activity she is supremely good at.

Academic work, worries me much less. She knows there are DCs that are better than her and she accepts you work to do the best you can.

As to defining academic, I think it is being above average and fitting in to what teachers expect a clever child to be like. Neat work, conscientious about home work, sensible in class, likes school and is happy to fit into its style of teaching.

DD1 is bright (at least as bright as DD1), but she is dyslexic and independent minded. Sometimes schools way of getting the job done would not be hers.

The thing you have to beware of at very super selective is academic snobbery; where the "less able" are looked down on and labelled "stupid." Also the pace in super selective is very fast the lessons can be quite dry and the children are under considerable pressure from tier parents and school to perform many will have very high bars to get over to go onto into the 6th form; more pressure who wants to be one of a handful leaving because you didn't make the grade tis sort of thing scars children. I doubt that there a few children in these schools who are top for everything but being at the bottom for most things must be demoralising. Having said all of this I doubt the average or just above average would even get in especially now that they are so intensively screened.

That's a very bad write up you just gave your DS's school happygardening: intellectual snobbery with the less able thought of as 'stupid', dry lessons, considerable parental pressure....

I don't think it's just about the differences between lessons etc, it's also about ambitions and expectations of peers.

I started out at decent comp and was def 'above average' but was very unhappy & parents moved me to academic independent school (top results in the county). I was loads happier even tho' not the best at everything anymore.

Partly that was being surrounded by peers who treated it as normal (like my parents did) to go to uni, aim to be a Lawyer, Dr, etc etc.

Going to Oxbridge was seen as perfectly normal for the super bright & school expected some each year to do so.
not me though!

Being academic is absolutely nothing to do with being neat.

I don't think that there is much intellectual snobbery at DD1's school. Nor do I think the lessons are dry. They are certainly fast paced and full on but that's what the kids there like.

I'll have to pull all my boys out of school if it is Metabilis (though the old HT did say he had to take boy 11+ scripts down to the chemist to get them read).

As a dyspraxic parent to dyspraxic kids we'd all be up the well known creek if neatness was an analogue for braininess.

I don't detect much intellectual snobbery either Metabilis. The really stellar kids are acknowledged to be stellar and the rest seem to get on with it. I most certainly don't think the lower achievers are snubbed as 'stupid'; the teachers would be very cross if 'clever' students tried any of that.

Ours is lauded as one of the small number of schools where the science teachers regularly make things go bang. One of the main things I like is that the teaching and lessons aren't dry.

And DD1 has just had to pay £60 to Oxford to get her last Final script transcribed - and they've seen some messy scripts in their time (that said, the result still isn't in....).

Yellowtip I din't say it happens at my DS school I listen to the comments friends and other children at other super selctive schools i don't live in splendid glorious isolation.

@Yellow I kind of glaze over while I'm being told (because it's SO not my thing and I find I'm just too old to feign enthusiasm any more for all 3 of them, my quantum of enthusiasm has to be carefully eked out) but thats the impression I get too. Interesting lessons. Purposely designed to stop them ever getting bored (because they all bore quite easily, I think).

"As to defining academic, I think it is being above average and fitting in to what teachers expect a clever child to be like. Neat work, conscientious about home work, sensible in class, likes school and is happy to fit into its style of teaching."

Really? For me academic means more than justntop set material. And surely neatness has absolutely nothing to do with it?

"dryness" is also very subjective but as a recent mature student I found that the more academically challenging lectures were often quite dry but that doesn't mean they were boring or even baly delivered infact one of our most knowledgable and best lectures was often dry but many of us were glued. From my experience the reality is that many less able find this style cores accessible aboard erring on boring. Humans b nature make value judgements about others; "he's very clever, beautiful lazy funny crap at his job I suspect that in a super selective competitive environment it is intelligence that is judge, in my occupation we very much judge people by their knowledge and ability to do a job effieciently tinged with humour I w

"dryness" is also very subjective but as a recent mature student I found that the more academically challenging lectures were often quite dry but that doesn't mean they were boring or even badly delivered infact one of our most knowledgable and best lectures was often dry but many of us were glued. From my experience the reality is that many less able find this style unaccessible boardering on the boring. Humans by nature make value judgements about others; "he's very clever, beautiful lazy funny crap at his job" I suspect that in a super selective competitive environment it is intelligence that is judged, in my occupation we very much judge people by their knowledge and ability to do a job effieciently tinged with humour I would rather be judged on either of these two than how big my house is or how wealthy I am!