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" ?

Chris Woodhead has written that he believes you should put your child in the most academic school that they are qualified to enter due to the positive effects of interaction with clever children who are interested in school. You may not agree with him though.

I would assume that if your child is far off the mark, s/he will not be accepted in the first place. I sometimes think the comments about tutored children struggling come from very competitive parents. All schools have children who are comparatively weak in some subjects. In my experience I haven't seen it cause particular problems, though I appreciate that it can be hard to have chums who achieve As effortlessly while you have to slog. That's more about character and apporach than ability though.

If Chris Woodhead says it, that must be an exceptionally good reason to ignore it.

Re 'academic', I have never thought about it but suspect I use to = 'bright' because 'academic/non-academic sounds so much politer than bright/dim which is often what I mean but sounds v un-PC. And will definitely rile some people, when discussing grammar schools.

Obviously leading to lengthy discussions as to the plasticity of the brain, and how unfair it is for late developers etc.

So now I say academic/non-academic and apparently noone will quibble as they don't know what is meant by it.

Oh, god. So now non-academic=dim? Jesus wept!

@Seeker I think that this is exactly the usage many people adopt actually, yes. It's not one I agree with but it's one I recognise.

To be honest while not ideal it's definitely better than the usage where people claim intelligence or intellect with no basis but then say 'of course he/she isn't academic so you can't expect them to do well in exams'

I did write my post particularly with you in mind, seeker. :)

But actually, I think I'm just being more honest than most. I think that is what most people mean by 'academic'. Someone who does well in an academic environment ie school or college = bright. With an element of hrd-working too.

Intellectual is a different matter atogether. Has a clear and generally agreed meaning. Sadly not valued much in this country, unlike in France, say.

Being academic and being clever are not one and the same, though they can be.

If for example you take my DD's school, you will find the vast majority doing very well academically. However it is mixed ability.

The girls results may seem to suggest that the girls are all very clever but they are not. They are just very well educated.

Very few children are just naturally super bright.

Naturally super bright to me does not necessarily equal academic.

The majority of children will do very well academically given a sound education (academic) i.e responds with positive outcomes to a sound education.

Some children despite receiving a sound education will still not do well academically = non academic.

I hear a lot of comments on MN about children who have done very well academically because they have been tutored or attended an indy school where the teachers are able to give more time to them etc...but this is supposed to be the very result of a good edcuation.

Anyway i've gone off topic slightly!

In order to be successful in life you only need one attribute ?.. drive. You can have the best education in the world but it won?t get you anywhere unless you have drive and ambition. The same goes for intelligence most of the profoundly intelligent people I know are middle income.

Well, my children are both very bright, but neither academic nor intellectual!

True, True! but drive can also be "nurtured" dont you think ?

Seeker - bright in what sense ?

In the face of adversity most people give up, driven people never give up. I don?t think you can teach that, you either have it or you don?t.

Bright as in good at school, level 5 or more in year 6, older one predicted As and A*s in GCSE.......

i suppose your "bright" is my "academic".

Sadie -Natural drive in each person certainly varies but i strongly believe drive can be encouraged starting at home and then through education at school.

Drive can also be altered by life experiences so its not a just a simple matter of "either have it or you dont".

If they were academic, they would, at least occasionally, chooses some sort of intellectual persuot ofer watching Friends, or playing football. That's the difference between "bright" and "academic" to me. An academic person is a natural student who will do more than is required. A bright person is one who does what is necessary...

I think this thread shows partly that we all have different definitions for various terms, no wonder people get into such heated arguments/debates on education threads, posters assuming they are all talking about the same thing but individuals are actually using popular terms to mean something completely different.

Very true.

sadie the strong implication in your post is that ample money amounts to success. It doesn't for everyone. On a micro scale my eldest claims to want to earn a large salary and is well placed to do it, on a starting salary of £40k. My third daughter could pursue exactly the same path but is likely to go sideways into a less well paid job, simply because she prefers that branch of law. My fourth is going to be a doctor. He's not in it for the money and may well prefer research to Harley St. which I can't imagine would have the faintest appeal. And my second will be a church mouse, but I would probably regard her as at the very least equally successful, in terms of what counts.

seeker I think we need to lose this idea that academic children or even those with an intellectual bent can't also watch Friends or play football or have a Made in Chelsea or X-Box habit or whatever. I think you might be horrified - or thrilled - at the rubbishy pastimes pursued amongst the very cleverest modern young. Of couse some may do nothing but sing madrigals or learn a tenth ancient language for fun, but lots let off steam by watching pure junk.

And post on mumsnet when they are older...

@yellow DD1 can probably recite the whole 11 seasons of friends in their entirety. Whereas I can only do selected quotes. :( She can also definitely do the entire run of Star Trek TOS, all of new Who and lots of real Who (I beat her there); most of the west wing, all of Lost and probably all of BSG. Her detailed knowledge of all of these pales beside her knowledge of Glee. Her sibs are the same with some minor variations (DSs main party trick at the moment is quoting reams and reams of Bleak Expectations to the be,use,ent of basically the entire world except his family. I dread the day he discovers Python. That's the day I run away to sea). DD1 is academic, super bright, intellectual, does sing madrigals (but prefers show tunes or folk) and does all sorts of other stuff too.

In short she's 14 and sadly for her, she's her mother's daughter.

But that's not what I said. I said a truly academic child would at least sometimes willingly choose academic persuits over football and Friends because they would be to some extent a natural student. I'm not saying that they should spend thir lives in an ivory tower composing sonnets!

DD (11) would seem to have become less academic but remained equally bright. At 7 she would amuse herself by composing harp/violin duets, writing endless stories and doing DIY science experiments. Now she mainly wants to ride her pony or talk about her pony to her friends on Facebook. I just thought she was growing up.