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" ?

I found your post at 10:59 challenging happy, that's for sure :)

To me 'dry' = dull and uninspiring.

Cross-post. That one was less challenging; thank you.

It depends on the child:

1. children peak at different times. Analytical skills are a real advantage at secondary, whilst good literacy and maturity help a lot at primary. This may be the danger of heavy tutoring, where preparation and diligence may hide a lack of analytical skills which then make subjects like chemistry and history heavy gong.
2. we had no hesitation in accepting a place for DS in a selective and academic school, even though we knew he would be some way from the top of his cohort. Not because he is necessarily brighter than his sibling but because he is studious, likes having clever friends and is not bothered where he comes in class. DD in contrast is naturally competitive and probably needs to be somewhere where she is in the top half.
3. in some ways, assuming you are not struggling to keep up, it is easier to be in an academic school where high achievement is assumed and where lessons regularly extend beyond the scope of the National Curriculum. However DD is gaining useful learning skills as she realises that if she wants to do well and be towards the top of her class, she needs to focus and make some effort. Her brother may get better results than her, not least because an academic school has fostered his love or learning and allowed him to remain what in many schools would have been considered a nerd. I suspect that if DD had squeezed into a more academic school she would have drifted along the bottom and not found the incentive to exert herself.

IMO dryness doesnt have to equate with dull and uninspiring any more than a dry sense of humour is dull or unfunny. But it may be so academically rigorous that the less able find it difficult to access it especially when complicated concepts are involved, I once sat in a lecture by a renowned quantum physicist it was IMO unbelievably dry and completely inaccessible an exceedingly bright friend thought it was fascinating!?

Dry in the context of humour isn't really comparable to dry in the context of teaching. Some of our teachers have very dry humour indeed and their lessons are anything but.

This thread is getting quite hung up on semantics though :)

I think if a teacher in a highly selective secondary gave lessons which were only accessible to the gifted pupils and left those in the lower ability range wondering what he was on about, he'd be a rubbish teacher.

Gunz - if you are talking about a very academic selective school in London or South East of England an average or even above average child will simply not even get in. They are that selective.

Our children were at a very academic selective school (Top 10 in UK academic league tables) and then went to a school that is above average academic (Top 100 in UK academic league tables).

There are extremely bright children at the current school and all the children perform above the national average as it is fairly selective. Personally I like the atmosphere better at our current slightly lower league table school even though both our children could handle a slightly more academic school.

I would not try and put an average child in a very academic school. You are setting them up to fail either the entry test or at some point while they are there. They will struggle in every lesson.

Had/Have 3 kids at superselective schools.

Would I send an "average" child there. No I would not. Many kids are struggling to keep up and are tutored , they are miserable and feel they are failing- they are still above average but don't feel they are other than " failures" . THat is not good.

Sometimes you can't tell how a child will thrive when placed in the right environment.

MoreBeta surely the entrance criteria for 'very academic' schools keep out those who will struggle. Failing to get in is another question entirely.

Yellow - not always. There were children at DSs previous school where it was suggested 'they might be better at a slightly less academic school' after thay had been there a few years.

Basically, its dog eat dog at some of the ultra competitive school and anyone that lags behind even if they passed the entrance exam is eased out - especially if the school has a waiting list.

Theas18 - that is what made us take DSs out of the super selective school they were at. So many children were being tutored even after a full day at a very academic school and it was like an arms race. It was almost reaching a sort of hysteria at times and some children really did not have a happy time. The league table position was all that mattered it seemed.

"Basically, its dog eat dog at some of the ultra competitive school and anyone that lags behind even if they passed the entrance exam is eased out - especially if the school has a waiting list."

And you would want to send your child to a school like this exactly why?

It might be because I know hardly any parents at DD1's school (although I do know two teachers, socially). It might be because DD1 has just been incredibly lucky in her circle of friends. But the picture of many kids being stressed out, feeling like failures, getting tutoring etc at a SSS just doesn't chime with my experience at all.

Perhaps our school is less SS than we thought. Or more. One of those.

seeker - we don't. That is why we took them out and sent them to a good but not ultra competitive school.

meta my DS has just left his prep school and I must say that I think on the whole the boys there have been very happy and have thrived.

It's not a terribly selective school, but it is absurdly high achieving (is that worse?).

They just seem a very joyous bunch.

Your experience chimes with mine Metabilis. I could do with a couple of my DSs being more stressed out.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't the parents who do the damage, not the school.

Yellow Indeed One of the few mothers I do know, talking to her for more than a few minutes stresses me out. I don't blame the school for that. Although perhaps I should......

I too think that a little more stress (in relation to French) might be no bad thing. But there you go.

I would not send an average child or a child that just squeaks in to a super-selective school. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. They risk being weeded out. This only happens in the independent sector and not the state sector. But I've seen children quite devastated upon being told quite kindly and gently that a less academic school might be the right place for them.

1. If they can stay in, then I think it erodes self-esteem and confidence. If we are talking a super-selective London independent, then the pace is absolutely fierce and it's rotten always being at the bottom of the class. This has happened to a couple of my friends' children.

The above only really applies to the super-selective independents. My DCs both attend selective independents and are doing absolutely fine - on the "iron sharpens iron" principle. They both work really hard and are being stretched and like to compete with others. Because they are in the mix. Even if a child's talents are not academic, then it is important to find a school that can find their talent and nurture and develop it.

At my DS's SS prep school (London), end of term exams were sprung on the boys to prevent many parents from getting their boys tutored. I was and . FFS, they are just unimportant end of year exams which have no bearing on anything - more of a practice in exam skills! The school does publish class rankings, and some parents (hyper competitive themselves) want to make sure that their son is in the top third. The school is very much against the practice of outside tutoring, but the manically competitive parents will not be deterred thus leading the school to spring the exams on the boys without notice.

What informs your knowledge of state selectives Hopefully?

Your school sounds very grounded Mominatrix, some of the parents less so.

mom class rankings seems a little yucky.

We get a test score, then year average and set average. That's enought I think.

The school I went to (some of you will know it) had class rankings at the end of each term in the 1st - 3rd year. We also had every exam we took internally ranked (and we had january and july exams in each year).

I don't know a lot about state selectives, which is why I restricted my comments to superselective and selective independents.

There is a super-selective grammar locally. The only one within a 50-mile radius and very sought-after. We looked at it long and hard, and entered DD for the entrance exam. She passed comfortably and then it was decision-time. We decided against it for a number of reasons. So I have researched the state selective option available to me in quite a lot of detail but I don't have a lot of information about them, which is why I chose not to comment on them :)

@Hopefully that sounds very like DD1s school apart from the fact that at DD1's school you don't know whether you passed the entrance exam by a country mile or a mouse's whisker.

But you did comment on them Hopefully, when you said certain things did not apply to them, as though you knew. Hence my question.

No it can't be our school Metabilis because there no-one ever knows how they did. I was once told by a mum that her DC had come 'in the top three', which I knew she couldn't possibly know, so I think I just said 'How marvellous'.

From entry 2012 parents will know which 'category' of three they're in, which marks a change. That's purely for the purposes of being able to make an informed(ish) decision about whether of not to put the school as their first choice on the LA caf.