Those of you in favour of grammar schools, come and tell me what to say to my Ds...

[seeker]

He woke up crying in the night because the reality had just hit him that he won't be going to school with his close friends in September because he failed the 11+ in September. "I can't be very bright, can I mum, or I would have passed" " no, it was just one of those things-you're going to a good school, you'll be fine" "I know- but if i was clever I'd be going to school with X and Y" "You are clever- look at your SATs-you'll be in the top set at the high school because of those" " it's not SATS that are important, though, it's the 11+"

Do you want to have more kids feeling like that? Then campaign for more grammar schools,

Possibly,mordion - though the non grammar sample does include input from other parents,and exactly the same reports from DS's friend at a different school.Its all anecdotal,but that is bound to influence your views.
(Also,though I'm not sure what difference it makes,when you are comparing grammar/non-grammar in our area,you are also comparing single sex/mixed schools as all the grammars are single sex,and all but a very few non-selectives are mixed.)

Comprehensive schools don't have to be large in my Utopian dream. Neither do children have to move too far out of their age range. It would just mean that my August born DS could have been in the year below or if he was very advanced (and mature enough) he could have gone in the year above. Those born in September may well be better in the year above. August 31st seems very arbitrary-there have been twins born each side of midnight-sensibly they did relax the rule in that case. They don't in general.

It isn't fair to write off the bright child as 'doing well anywhere'-another thing that is simply not true.

Just being nosy, Xenia-you may prefer not to answer-just wondered if you got where you got today through a comprehensive or private education?

So seeker was angry and outraged when her dd got into grammar school and is now angry and outraged her ds failed to get in. That is absolutely nuts.

She is outraged at the system-or that is my understanding-and she is stuck with the system. People can't just up and move.

sorry 'by' not 'at'.

"As for whether people should simply ignore your own position and debate...tbh that's incredibly patronising and self important. It also smacks of a complete lack of understanding of human nature."

I don't expect them to completely ignore it- that would be silly. I do expect them to make their point about me then response to the points I make. Which some people are able to do. Others aren't. I suspect these are the people who have the utopian view of grammar school education I have described.

Being outraged is simply not productive.

You dont help your DC by moaning about unfair systems. It is not all as bad as some make it sound - there are always choices and opportunities.

It is very weird that somebody with such strong views does nothing other than complain. She's not prepared to stand as a politicial candidate on an anti-grammar platform, start an internet campaign, home educate or horror of horrors, move her boat or whatever it is she lives on slightly out of the grammar area. All she wants to do is blame other people for the situation she's placed her ds in.

Its part of the entitlement culture someone else is always to blame...

seeker I'm strongly in favour of the provision of grammar education although not as practised in Kent. But certainly not because I'm so unworldly or so whimsical as to subscibe to your 'utopian view'. Love the DH Lawrence meets the History Boys angle though - spoken like a true southerner :) (and are we now patronising northernfolk as well as benefit claimants? Is there any other obvious category we should include?)

It is unfair to keep banging on about Seekers actions. We all do the best we can by our children given the circumstances we have, that's a good thing. Some people may put their principles above their children's best interests, personally I think that is a much worse thing to do than putting your child in for the 11+ when you don't agree with it.

If Seeker came on her and was fundamentally opposed to the private healthcare system, but then felt forced into using it because the NHS wasn't offering the best of itself to her child, no one would be this critical. It's the same thing.

Seeker, if you want people to respond to the points you make rather than your own position, it may be better for you to address points that are made about the systems rather than responding to the posters that keep banging on about the choices you have made.

If seeker didn't want people to personalize their responses to her threads the best course of action would be to not start deeply personalized threads.

Incidently I would be completely critical of someone who professed to despise private medicine but rushed for the cheque book the minute they needed some medical care. I do not approve of private medicine and I don't take up the BUPA membership/sub (whatever is the system they actually run) that my employers offer. Because I think that that would be both wrong and hypocritical.

Well, yes. And I too have made the point on this thread that I think Seeker had more options than she is prepared to acknowledge. But 31 pages down the line, it is not unreasonable to expect that the debate may have moved on.

I don't approve of private medicine either, but I am not so strongly principled that I was prepared to stand by that when the NHS treatment (or lack of) was seriously in danger of causing my husband to lose his eyesight. Sorry, but I don't think descisons like that deserve to be called hypocritical. Just like my dh and I shouldn't have been in that position, Seeker feels she shouldn't have to be in a position where she has to make that kind of descison about something as important as her child's education.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this onto healthcare, I'm just giving an example of a situation where it helps no one, and is actually detrimental to your family, to hold on to principles just for that sake of it.

And I'm saying that I completely disagree with your example. There's no point in having a principle if you don't actually stick to it when it matters, is there. It's the sticking to them in difficult times that makes them principles.

The problem with people like the OP is that she's like little Johnny who walks in the opposite direction to the the parade then complains that everyone else is walking in the wrong direction.

Really? You would honestly stand by a principle if it meant someone you love losing their eyesight?

Wow.

Mordian As a family we have been in a situation where we've had to rely on private healthcare for a member of the family. We support the NHS but it has been the difference between that person walking or not walking. I honestly question the sanity of a person who would think that's unreasonable.

People with true principles do curious things. For complicated reasons I needn't explain a great uncle very consciously risked his wife's life as well as his two sons lives as a matter of principle (albeit during the war).

I'm afraid I'm less high minded than either Mordion or him. But there are people like that Freddo, clearly.

So is the Kent Test held on one day, as seeker said it was, or held over more than one day, as Ingles2 said?

Yes, clearly there are.

I find it bizarre though and I really can't get my head around it at all. What I understand even less, is how these people who would be prepared to sacrifice their loved ones for their principles can actually believe that that is a good thing that somehow makes them better, or stronger than others who couldn't do it.

seeker, have you considered applying for a place in y8? I know some parents who have said to their DC who didn't get through 11+, try out the comp until Christmas, and if you're not happy we can look at the possibilities for Y8 transfer. And all that I know who have done this have found that by that point in the year, the child is settled and happy.