Help Please? Anyone's D got into Haberdashers or NLCS at 4+?

[funkychic]

My D is will be going for the 4+ 'play group' asesssment at Habs and NLCS. I'm desparate to know what they ask them to do. Really need advise from all mums whose child are already in these schools. Pleeeeeeaaaassse help!!!

I think that Aloha has some issues. It is stupid to pretend that all children are born equal. Selective private schools are extremely intense environments. Some children can handle the pressure and others cant. The idea of these tests is to make sure that the child will be happy at the school.

My son has orthopedic problems and I dont think he will be representing England for football when he grows up. He would fail horribly at the football test.

Andrew attends the local state primary school where he is doing really nicely.

However different children need different types of education. Also different parents have different opinons on what is best for their child.

Private school parents save the country a fortune as they pay their children's education twice.

Aloha, wow. I love the differences in views you get on mumsnet. Despite the fake we're all the same let's give them all gold stars and never put crosses on their work for mistakes because all their work is the same, even though the children can patently see X is bright and Y is not, A is pretty and B is not... our children will emerge into a real and very competitive world at 18. I want mine to be rounded individuals with a broad education for life which I find NLCS and Habs have given the girls, no restrictions of the national curriculum, no one held back by others in the class, happy confident girls who can hold their own in any debate but also very sporty and musical, that broadness of education you can buy if you work hard enough and pick the right career as a mother to ensure your children get that.

So what I feel is that now my girls are at university having come from those schools I have done my best for them. Also I actively enjoyed their years at those two schools which were an important part of family life.

I think competition is just part of life and you can bet your bottom dollar in 20 years time our children will be going to interviews where their looks (prettier people get better jobs), weight (fat people get worse jobs), height (taller people do better) and of course their exam results and self confidence matters much. It's a very unfair world

By the way mass clear outs are rare in these very academic schools because they schools are so excellent in picking at 4 or 7 who will fit in. It's the schools who don't have the experience of that who may need to deal with children who aren't happy there because they got in in a sense by mistake.

My eldest has slight dyslexia. Habs were brilliant with her and she got special help in the juniors and went on to get great A levels. School very committed to the girls they picked.

Blimey Xenia, how would you have coped if one of your girls had been slightly overweight or not as pretty as everyone else? I am pretty lost for words at your post and relieved that I chose not to send my kids down that route...

Yes, I have issues with schools (which have bloody charitable status, ffs) which pride themselves on discriminating against children who are even mildly different from the norm. And, to be honest, with the kind of people who think is it marvellous that their children need never meet anyone who is not exactly like them. I find it creepy.

I am talking about a very specific kind of private/public school here, ones which have deliberate screening policies to prevent the darlings of the (mainly) rich from being contaminated by the special needs scum - and, should they by some horrific error, admit a slightly different sort of child to the norm - have a 'mass clear out' of them by the age of seven (to where?).
It is these policies within the private/public school system that I find so utterly repellent. And I feel the same about the attitudes of those who find those polices highly desirable. I am sure you wouldn't be disgusted and appalled to find my son sitting next to yours in class, but it seems from MN that plenty would be.

I have no issues with private education actually - ie don't think it is inherently wrong - and I don't think I was making a sweeping generalisation. I was specifically referring to what I perceive as the glee with which some people seem to discuss how some schools work hard to exclude children for utterly trivial reasons (colouring and kicking a ball for example). I do find that pretty revolting.

I so agree with you, Aloha. Last year we had the difficult task of choosing an International school for dd. The choice came down to two, both of which seemed suitable. A big factor in choosing dd's current school was that it offered learning support, whereas the other was unable to deal with 'that sort of child'. We are lucky that dd has, thus far, never needed learning support but, to me, the willingness or otherwise of a school to care for all children says a lot about its ethos.

I so wanted to post on this thread last night and rave about the talents of an aspergers child I know but can;t think of how not to breach confidentiality.

My own dd goes to an indeoendant school that accepts children with special needs within reason (ie they have the resources to cope with their needs). There is a girl in dd's class, I have no idea what her need is other than she has a one to one assistant. She seems pretty bright to me though there is something about her I can;t put my finger on. It doesn't matter one bit and it does not affect my dd's education.

I am all in favour of academic selection and selection by special talent but would not be comfortable with the type of screening at such a young age that has been described. Children wishing to join my dd's school at 7 have to pass a test, but it is more to make sure that they are up to the standard of work.

Then again a lot of this is suppostition. Xenia may have children at these schools and may think she knows what they are looking for in their selection process but only the school themselves know for sure. Schools are also (and if they are not they should be) constantly evolving and selection criteria may change.

I also have to say that I really realised some of the all-round benefits of well-done inclusive education. dd2 has an autistic classmate, and I had to really struggle to hold back the tears when I saw the christmas play - and saw, firstly how enormously the autistic boy enjoyed it and secondly see the little boy who had been given the job of helping him

I know that not all private schools are so brutal in their selection process. And that some, indeed, pride themselves on being inclusive and supportive. I believe children definitely benefit from being aware that not everyone is just like them.
I find the argument that treating four year olds like this is OK because many adults have cruel prejudices is just bizarre. So maybe attractive people do better at work (arguable, I'd say) so should schools therefore select four year olds on the grounds of their looks and weight?
I don't want to have a row about private education. My stepdaughter is at an independent school and she's just lovely, as are her friends. I am however, repelled by the kind of screening tests for the very young which are really designed to exclude children who are even slightly different, and I hate the idea that this, not the quality of teaching or the extensive grounds etc, is really what people are paying for.

But Blair is screening all the time. He's trying to say unless you live on a council estate and your parents put no effort into you you won't have the same chance to go to university or if you're black with one leg you'll get a leg up as it were.

I like this argument because it's fascinating to see people with different views. Aloha virtually every sensible parent at state schools does exactly what you're complaing about - they move to a place with high house prices to their little darlings can be educated with middleclass children without problems. It's just that if you p;ick these schools which by the way virtually always get some of the best A level results in the country every single year, you're just being open and honest about it. It's the dishonesty of the left which is much worse, the Blairs with their Oratory state school and Westminster school tutors etc.

I certanily agree schools change all the time. I like those that over 15 years have always had the best A levels, sporting and music achievements because that shows consistency.

The state grammars were as objectionable on the Aloha principle as the private very academdic schools.

Many parents in the state and private systems and through how they bring up their children and evne in the accent and grammar they give to their children and giving them healthy food and a regular bed time and not swearing in front of them etc are doing things they think will be better for the chidlren. These are things which can make them different from other children who are badly looked after and sworn at etc at home. I don't think you can single out education and saying I want them educated with these types of clever children as being wrong when at home you're also saying I want my child to avoid hanging out with young drug dealers.

At the end of the day the girls at Habs and NLCS do pretty well in life compared to other schools. They are unlikely to be less happy or adujusted either so why not give them that advantage?

By the way Habs and NLCS are some of the most racially mixed schools in the country if you're talking about mixing with people who aren't like you so arguably you get a better mix than if you go to a state school where people are basically choosing by house price and race rather than pure IQ.

Ok can I just ask what NCLS stands for? I live quite near ish Habs so I know that one .

BTW I'm just reading this thread out of interest as the schools mentioned were local/near ish to us. I could never afford to even consider them as a school for my children.

North London Collegiate. One of the first schools set up in Victorian times to let girls get a proper education in the days when they weren't allowed to graduate from university even because they were girls. We really have come a long way with improving the lot of women in 150 years.

www.nlcs.org.uk/

Don't assume schools are outside your reach. Some people can earn more, get a better paid job, work longer hourse. I just think people have more choices than they realise. And some children have help with fees.

NLCS gets slightly better A level results than Habs and often beats Eton. It's frequently the best school of any in teh country for A level results but it's not raw exam factories these schools. They are very holistic and produce fairly rounded confident girls. I like the fact you can be a computer nerd, a Mandarin expert, the best chess player in England, the coolest girl at the collest clubs in London or whatever - just giving girls options and choices to be who they are. I wouldn't of course claim no girl has any problems. At any school they well.

Thanks Xenia

The looks and weight and height thing is interesting. Most employers who are there to make money rarely recruit from a narrow pool whether it's one legged lesbians or white Oxbridge males because you lose money. You want the best of the next generation for that business and you don't get that through recruitment which involves recruiting people like yourself.

But in general in life those factors I mentioned do help people. If you're prettier you tend to earn more, find it easier to get a boyfriend or girl friend and even be treated nicer by other people. It's very unfair. I pick on looks so we get away from the IQ issue on the thread. For every inch of height you do better in interviews. On weight that too affects your job prospects to some extent unless you're oging into sumo wrestling but I suppose even there weight counts but the other way round.

What about inherent unfairnesses we are born with? I think that's a fascinating issue. The internet removes some of those problems - the short fat ugly socially inept disabled person can work via email and chat and appear otherwise so it's a good tool to break down barriers although if your IQ is 80 and you email me you're not going to get very far I suppose unless you get a clever friend to write the email and send fake pictures which has been known to be done.

Xenia- I think your posts have saddened me more than any other posts I've read on mumsnet.

Tell me why. Those sorts of comment without any debate or reasons are hard to reply to for that reason. It saddens me to think parents are bringing up children to pretend the world is other than it is.

Sorry I have to get ready to go out in a moment so can't chat long. I guess because of the world view you have (which is probably true in the sense that people are of course judged in the way you say). However, I choose not to live my life trying to be the best i.e I don't send my children to private schools, I teach in qa school for children with special needs, I want my children to do well but not to the extent that they feel that if they are not the best i.e the right size or the cleverest that they have failed somehow.

To me society is a complex mixture of people and I want them to appreciate that rather than try to top it.

All that said I will admit my hypocrasies (sp). We moved to a better area to school our kids, they go to church schools that are very selective in terms of faith not intellect. I do steer my ds away from unsuitable friendships and will continue to do so.

Ds has a fairly large number of children with special needs in his class and one of his close friends is on the spectrum for aspergers. I see all this as a plus to his state education rather than a hindrance.

Does any of that make sense?