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!!!

bit buried now, but just realised I didn;t finish my post, being a pedant it's niggling me. I meant to say:

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, doing his job brilliantly, with kindness, warmth and a real sense of responsibility.

Depends on the child's condition too. Some parents are lobbying hard to keep special schools I think including David Cameron. So you can't generalise that's it's always better to integrate. Parents in state schools should have a choice.
Also some of these very academic private schools will and do accommodate some children who are autistic but brilliant (I accept most aren't but some are). In some ways you are more likely to fit in in a private school than some rough comprehensive where if you open a book your spat on as a geek or nerd. Not saying all comprehensives make it hard for children to be good at their work in front of their peers but I get the impression in general that is so in many and not so in schools like Habs and NLCS.

well I'll agree with you there xenia. ds1's time in mainstream was miserable, and as a family our life has become 100 times easier since he moved from mainstream. I actually loathed the one school play ting he took part in - it was like a freak show- love the ones at his spoecial school (which are mad, but entirely wonderful). I spend a lot of time talking to a friend with a very high functioning girl with AS who wishes beyond anything that there was specialist provision available for her (there's nothing available for HFA/AS locally- although our LEA does have good provision for moderate/severely autistic children). I suspect she would do better in a small private school (because of her particular problems- which relate especially to sensory problems with large classes etc) but the LEA won't fund LSA's in private schools (which she would need initially because of her anxiety levels).

I really have no knowledge of children with special needs except that some of my family (not me) spend a lot of time treating/advising on them but I think it will depend on the child. I suspect some very bright but high end autistic children would do quite well in some academic private schools and indeed they go to them and perhaps there is more acceptance of children who don't quite behave like others in that sector. I do think there needs to be state provision beyond 16 as well for children with special needs. Most parents when their children are little hope they will lead as full and normal (whatever normal is) life as they can I suspect, so getting them into mainstream school, particularly if their problems are not too severe is best.

Obviously the most academic schools in the country reject anyone who can't keep up with the work. I don't see a problem with allowing those kinds of schools to exist and people like me to use them if we choose even if other parents think all schools should be open to all. I think it just confirms what all state school parents usually do anyway - pick a school to suit their child.

It was the tests on entry in effect for dyslexia, ADD, dyspraxia which offended some. At 11+ testing those things in effect are tested for anyway by looking at their written report, report from previous school and interview so I cannot see a moral argument for saying it is wrong to test for something at 4 which is also tested for at 11 in those kinds of schools. Of course there is the separate point that only state schools be allowed, that they all be entirely the same and they accept everyone who lives in a certain radius. Even that is discriminatory because the rich buy expensive houses and make their children go to school locally so it's still not a fair system, it's still segregation so then you get to whether we should forcibly bus children in as they did with whites into black areas and vice versa in American's deep south as the only way to get the integration you want.

Interesting stuff. The fact we are all born some with lots of natural "advantages" (looks, brains, personality) and others aren't is unfair too but that is life. It's an unfair world.

Totally agree with post 16 provision for special needs. Appalling. It's hard to believe we live in a developed country when you see the complete lack of places.

I also agree with the point about children with special needs in a mainstream school. I taught in a state comp for a few years and children with special needs were not catered for at all. Teachers had no training and no idea of how to prepare resources for them. THey were placed where they would cause the least disruption to the rest of teh class.
Now teaching in a special school I realise how to prepare lessons and resources and see just how lacking my previous school was. That school also had an excellent reputation for dealing with special needs.

Don't these discussions always get SOOOO 'involved' when the X-Factor arrives? Better than any three-ring circus I could think of! Just about any topic that goes 'critical' on MN involves a certain person and their - um - 'slightly to the right of Attila' views! And so nobody gets offended thinking I'm a gloating bystander I DID contribute earlier on in the thread! And, genuinely, Happy New Year to all!

Eh?

Oh, that's a good expression - X factor. I'm not that right wing actually although I do believe in free markets.
What presumably most web sites want to avoid is people who are clones of each other all patting each other on the back saying - you're right, you're so like me, how wonderful. It's only interesting if people have different views.

Agree with you there, Xenia. Which is why I said earlier (I think, if I didnt I meant to) that's why I love mumsnet so much.

I think that Xenia's views are extremely common. The difference is that Xenia is brave enough to air them.

It needs to be remembered that not getting into a school or university at any age isnt the end of the world. Life is what you make of it.

Yes, anyway state school parents mostly want their children educated with well behaved middle class children like them, the vast majoriy bar a few extreme socialist. Why would you want your child's education to be difficult, learning to be hard, peoplei nthe class to be disruptive, people who swear, don't go to bed on time etc? It's just good parenting to pick the best school for your child.

To try to get girls into NLCS and Habs which I think are two of the best schools in the country is surely just good parenting IF you have a child who is clever. It is by no means a choice to go to those schools. You only get in if you're quite bright and you'd only thrive there if you are. That's no more discriminatory than saying I only want my child in school with other Catholics or Jews or only with girls not boys or whatever.

Xenia, I think what people are objecting to is your assumption that those schools would be the first choice of everybody whose child was capable of getting in and who could afford the fees. That is simply not the case.

We turned down City of London and South Hampstead for dd1 at 11+, both of which have similar outlook and ethos to the schools you are describing. We also decided against Latymer and Henrietta Barnett, which are similar except you pay no fees. We also looked round Habs and NLCS, which are theoretically commutable from central London. Personally, and for my child, I wasn't keen on the elitist atmosphere and the sense of signing your child up for a high-powered but rather impersonal academic machine.

Dd1 is at a smaller Catholic girls' school with a rather wider intake, though still academically selective. Yes, overall the other schools might have slightly better results, though they are more selective, so better results overall don't necessarily mean better teaching or a better outcome for the individual. And yes, they undoubtedly have glitzier facilities and a wider range of out of school activities. But she is blissfully happy, and we are all completely convinced it was the right choice for her.

I think if you tried to sound less sure that everybody would make the same decisions as you if only they would see things your way, people might be less inclined to get huffy at your posts.

We didn't find them at all elitist or in any sense machines. In a way because the girls are clever they drive themselves and the school can concentrate on hobbies, the rounded person, activities, ethos etc. Children can be happy all over the place. I think schools which look on your CV for the next 20 years and get the best A levels in the country are probably just as capacble of being places children are happy at so why not put them into those schools but there was also the fact I liked the grounds, the parental involvement, the events, the other parents so I was also influenced by that.

I don't mind people criticising what I say. I don't relaly know many state Catholics schools which get decent A level results which are comparable to the schools on this thread, actually not that exam results are the only thing you go for but if you have all the other things right then you might as well go somewhere which is good at that as well as the other things.

Most important is we retain choices of school in the UK.

I also think having 3 who have come right through the school system etc that how they are is often in their genes anyway and for some children whatever you do to them whether it's breastfeeding, benign neglect or hot housing doesn't make too much difference and none of it mattesr as much as people think it does at the time.

I have found this thread fascinating tutoring 4yr olds...counts as abuse in my book!!....I agree that Xenia is out and proud and that she is a lovely easy target for the lefty liberals...however...I would like to add my unique personal experience. I went to a shite state school in the area then got a scholarship to Habs. what did I learn from this?...the world is unfair - but "you have to be in it to win it" (so agree with Xenia)... that is if you want to "win" it (ie is it your ambition that your child becomes a Merchant Banker?)...habs was an exam factory they knew the system..ie how to pass exams, how and where to apply to uni etc, - but the girls werent so brilliant ...I found their thinking closed down/pressurised/stilted compared to my previous state school mates - but the habs girls went to oxbridge and my state mates got jobs hairdressing its all about class...the habs girls were gobsmacked that someone as "common" as I was intelligent, then again so were the posh ones at my state school Habs is not a "mixed" environment - fine it is technically racially diverse but I think that this is so shallow as the middle class elitist ethos is so dominant in every racial group there that it there is little differentiation. People have such strong views as there is so much vested interest (ie I need to believe that this school is wonderful otherwise I will feel sick that it has cost so much /or/ I need to argue this is wrong as I have not chosen to spend out on PE /or/I need to argue this is wrong as I cant afford to be part of it) to, assumptions and stereotyping - ie academic hothouse vs drug dealing in the playground. My experience has taught me that your emotional and social skills (gained from your family) and personal drive are the horse before the academic cart which will determine whether your career potential is optimised. There is no "guaranteed" outcome from these schools - the individual has to work hard and deliver. Although I believe that a child placed in the right independent school, for them, will get better grades (all other things being equal) than if they had been at a state school ie they might get all As rather that all Bs -- this may or may not be a life enhancing difference - depending on what it as you had wanted to do in the first place ie study vet science at Cambridge vs Zoology at Manchester. I also believe that private education buys into a "social" network ...not necessarily from an exclusive/snobbish perpective but from a well informed, connected, knowledgable base which again may or may not have life enhancing abilities - depending how this is utilised, exploited or not. Anyway thats my little synopsis...

knackered, that's fascinating. I think it's a bit contradictory. You say family etc has a big impact on how you do but then say the girls who were at your not so good original state school ended up hairdressers whilst the Habs girls might be merchant bankers.

Of course hairdressers are as happy as merchant bankers etc but that's a different debate. Personally I didn't find Habs snobby at all. Accents of the girls pretty awful, spoken English not very good, lots of lower middle class etc. It's not one of the very posh boarding school country school sort of places at all but I suppose that depends where you start from.

I agree there's no guaranteed ultimate outcome from these schools but if 99% go to university (and many to Oxbridge) then that's a fairly better outcome if university is what you want for your children, than a school where hardly anyone manages it. In life I agree with you as to what matters ultimately. Me at 45 looking at people in the City and friends who have been materially successful -it's a combination of personal drive, hard work, luck, brains and contacts etc. I suppose one issue is that for some of us it has not been a massive financial sacrifice to send them to the private school so why not? For others they cripple the family budget and then wonder if it was worth it.

knakered have you ended up earning more than had you not got to Habs on a scholarship and/or do you wish you hadn't gone?

Xenia...no I dont regret going to habs...I just found it personally a bit of a culture shock/eyeopener ...got easily intimidated by the overly confident or arrogant (depends what you see)girls as an impressionable teenager. I have done exceptionally well careerwise but I know that I would have achieved where ever...only went there for 6th form and turned up with better O levels from my shite state school than most of the girls there had. I come from a very disadvantaged background but my experience at that time taught me how to handle another set of people from another walk of life. The way I see it all now is that I have come further that others due to my humble roots...but others who have achieved have had to work at it too. Maybe they just had a more comfortable journey with less distractions. I dont think that the family thing is contradictory....my family encouraged me academically my friends families wanted them out there earning. What I missed at Habs and what I also miss in my posh colleagues and neighbours now is just having a laugh...its all so serious, smug and dull no one lets there hair down or has a sense of humour. I think you have hit the nail on the head with the "worth it" point. Education is key and a high priority of mine but where I have got to is that a bright, motivated, emotionally secure child with astrong family support will do good enough in a good enough state school - your bright 18 year old might suggest that the £200K you have spent to their private education so that they got 10*As rather than 10As they would have got from a statescholl might be better in vested in theri financial future...deposit for a property, tuition/university costs, business start up, pension etc. But I suppose if you have enough to do all of that as well...I think that the average or struggliing child would sees more benefit from a private education..with the extra customised support.
I am hoping that my 4 will get thru our local grammer system and to give them the best chance of that we have a couple in private prep schools - the other 2 we are confident will get thru and are in state primaries.

I'm interested in it, thank you. For us it wasn't money particularly needed on other things. It wasn't a huge sacrifice.
Not sure about the fun thing - look at my daughters with their friends etc. They are very not serious girls at all. I would have thought you can't generalise based on class or type of school. You'll have serious girls and not serious girls.

I thought it would be easier to kind of imbibe the same values in the children that I have if they have the same education I had although the trouble with NLCS and Habs is they're not posh at all - they're very mixed so you have to try to sort out their speech at home - hate the North London accent, words, "like", etc etc These are not really posh schools in my view which is why it's so interesting they seem snobby to you. My daughte playing lacrosse against the boarding schools where the girls are all whatever it means "posh" and virutally all taller and white and blonde - there you see schools where people seem to have sought out others like them in some kind of ghetto which probably doesn't prepare them for life whereas schools like Habs in a sense give them a good education, chance to mix with all kinds of people from many differnt religions and races and the sort of people they'll be working with in their business careers in future.

I wonder if it gave you the means to pick a career which would mean school fees would not be an issue though? I think career talks and guidance are a really important part of schools.

Are there really "lower middle class" children at Habs? What do you define as lower middle class Xenia? I'm interested. Is it occupation or income?

Myself and hubby have combined income of about 70k a year (when I go back to work next year anyway). Does that make us upper middle class or lower middle class?

I'd have thought some Habs parents would want a refund if they realised there were lower middle class children there

My dd goes to the local village school. She'll either pass her 11+ or not and so go to either the grammar or the local comp. Whichever suits her best.

I was just real surprised anyone thought it was a snobby school. That wasn't my experience of the parents there. Thinking of taxi driver father of daughter's friend. The other man with tatoos up his arms and irish accent. The Polish mother who worked in a dress shop etc. I can hardly think of any "posh" parents amongst my children's friends. You certainly don't go there to get a good accent. It's like a lot of good grammar type schools, fairly mixed.

Xenia...posh and snobby are not necessarily the same thing - snobby is looking down on others...doesnt matter if it is the postman looking down on the binman...I know lots of lovely "posh" people - its about being nice, open, empathetic, non judgemental. I had decided on my medical career from about the age of 12..I really dont think that I had any real advantage at Habs...I was a highly motivated/driven bright swot..what more can the £150-£200K add?...I didnt personally tap into the network thing. I think that many there really believed that they were super bright just because they went there - intelligence is quite a bit about genes, sucess as we have said before might well be about other things we have discussed earlier.

I went to a school that was similar to Habs. I got the impression that people sent their children to those type of schools for the education rather than to mix with certain children. The really rich dont have to worry how their children are going to have to earn a living.

Even though Xenia is well paid, I dont think she is rich enough to financially support all five of her children plus future dependents for the rest of their lives.

Academic private schools go beyond the national curriculum. The school I went to had lots of opportunites for drama, music, debating, learning classical languages as well as the national curriuclum. I look back at my old exercise books and I was doing Physics in what was year 9 that state schools now dont tackle until A-level. I also learnt calculus when I was 14/15 years old. I had to work extremely hard but I loved the education.

Not all children can hope with the pace of learning at Habs/ NLCS type schools. State schools are tied down by the national curriculum which stifles a bright child. Even in areas where there are grammar schools they cant radically deviate from the national curriculum.

I doult that you can pick the best performers at four years old. I suspect though the schools are picking children who have a great chance of sucess.

Failing an entrance exam isnt the end of the world. The child only gets upset if the parents make a huge deal out of it.

I suppose I'm just wondering how a lower middle class parent would afford Hab's fees. Which I believe are about 3k a term?

Take a couple of middle class professionals, ie; 2 nurses with a combined income of 4k before tax. This drops to 30k afetr tax - are they really going to be able to afford fees that come to more than a third of their annual income and still be able to pay a mortgage, etc.

I think any dress shop worker or taxi driver that can afford that must be earning more money than this. Which therefore does not make them "lower middle class". I don't think been a taxi driver has to have a significance on class - I'm sure some self employed taxi drivers earn a fortune.

I think we probably come into your category Rhubarbcat, dh a teacher me a secretary. Last year our combined income was around £30k but it was a bad year, we ate into savings and went overdrawn.

Hoping our yearly combined income is going to be £40-45k in future. We have a mortgage of £60k and school fees are £6-7K per child (we have two children though ds doesn't start pre-prep Sept 08)

It is a huge struggle and sacrifice for us.

F, good post. I agree. It also hopefully enables the children to have choices - whether they want to enter the buddish monastery or write poetry or run holiday trips to the Andaman islands or run merchant banks. I just think that kind of an education broadens the mind, makes you think most things are possible adn it also imbibes a work ethic you often don't get at the boarding schools of the more idle rich whose children have far too much money to buy drugs and probably more dysfunctional families.

On the cost I think the juniors is just under £8k a year. I think a lot of people in NW London probably earn more than national average even if they're just running a mobile hair dressing salon or driving taxis because there's more money around. The lady who worked in the dress shop in London - I certainly remember the fees being an issue for them. Taxi driver - depends - some I am sure earn more than teachers. Local Indian pharmasist - how much do they earn - I suppose they own the shop but even so I don't expect the profits are massive. A lot of people have second jobs too if school fees mean that much to them I suppose. My ex husband was working full time in the school and then had 30 pupils outside of it and did school summer holiday camps for extra money too.