Are all private school parents petty minded snobs?

[ReallyTired]

I had someone at church telling me that she thought I ought to pull my son out of his state primary and send him to a private school that helps children with learning difficulties like dyslexia.

My son is mildly deaf, but does not have any learning difficulties. He is doing well at his state school. Even though the class is big he has a good teacher. He is in middle ablity groups for everything at the moment.

He is in year 1 and can add and subtract numbers below 100 nicely. His reading is developing well as well. His spelling is very strangem but don't most six year olds have odd spelling? I can't believe that private school kids are two years ahead already at the age of 6?

This person made it clear that she thought that if my son went to a normal private school he would be in the bottom group for everything. Apparently her daughter is bright and she attends selective girl's school so she isn't held back children with SEN.

am astonished anyone could possibly be surprised by the notion that "high-octane" schools counsel out. unfortunately near us the private options are almost all "high-octane". we went to visit one and were told that a place gained at 3/4 would ensure entry to the secondary school... with the rather slick comment that of course some children would actually benefit from a move at 11... i wonder how many parents only heard the first part of that and saw themselves liberated from the misery of secondary school applications?

I have heard anecdotally about kids being told they can't be entered for particular GCSEs if they don't reach a certain benchmark in their Y10 exams, or alternatively being made to enter as private candidates so that their results don't show up in the school's statistics.

There's one previously middle-range London girls' school that has shot up the league tables over the past few years, allegedly as a result of that kind of funny business. Less directly confrontational than turfing children out, but just produces league table results that tell you squat all about the actual teaching in the school.

frogs, what you described was truely awful. The little girl who had leukema should not have been put through that sort of hell. I'm glad that the little girl had lots of offers of places at nicer schools.

What a horrible way to finish primary school. I hope she enjoys her new school.

I think that schools should meet the needs of the child, rather than expecting the child to meet the needs of the school. Its not reasonable to expect a child to do anything more than their best and to behave.

I feel that there is more to life than just league tables. Academic sucess does not necessarily guarentee life sucess.

frogs, I've been told the same thing about GCSEs.

Although many many years ago at my rubbish Comprehensive we sat tests at the end of third year (modern year 9) and if we didn't do well enough we were banned from doing that subject at O-level.

I don't remember any of my 3 being restricted over any GCSE subjects at all in their schools but perhaps those schools are so very very selective everyone who gets in is likely to be very clever anyway so the issue doesn't arise. It's only those who aren't good at sifting on admissions or which are lover grade that may be have those problems. But I absolutely accept their right to re-test at 11. My daughter was told very well in advance she might not pass at 11 although she did in the end. It was dealt with very well and very fairly.

Message withdrawn

Certainly, some of the parents and staff at the school my child went to were so far up their own arses that it was difficult to find a suitable oriface to communicate with.

The children who had been awarded 'Assisted Places' - a scheme by the Tories whereby lower income families had financial help through public school- they were always being reminded that they were less wealthy and INFERIOR to the landed gentry lot.
I could name plenty of petty examples of this but frankly don't want to as this horrible episode is behind us now and we will never go through it again. D.V.

One major point though - learning difficulties were seen as an impediment and help was discreetly offered 'privately' as if to sweep the whole issue under the carpet.

Reading all these posts has got me thinking around the debate about good universities offering places on popular courses to state school pupils with lower grades. In other words, looking at potential as well as actual academic attainment. Kings is doing this with one of its courses for people studying medicine. They've taken students with much lower A level grades (eg BCC rather than 4 A's) from a handful of really cruddy inner city schools and offered them an extra year of study before starting their medical training. Apparently it's working out really well.

I'd love this practice to spread.

bossykate
well i am astonished to have astonished you
I was not oblivious to that idea that some children will not move through to a senior school, I was also sure that children would in some instances be unable to cope. My surprise was at the suggestion that six year olds were regularly weeded out. I remain surprised that six year olds are regularly weeded out
I am happy to be convinced that it does indeed happen but i had simply not experienced it. Surely not astonished to be unaware of something that you have not experienced - is it?

well i too would be astonished at the practice of weeding out 6 yos! the only reason i can think of for weeding at that stage is from pre-prep if they think the child won't get into the preferred target preps - sadly that is what some parents are paying for and a key part of marketing the school will be getting the destination schools that parents want.

Our nearest state comprehensive prides itself that it has created an ethos where the less academically able children will simply not apply (and this is a near exact quote from the head to the press)

My mate applied and her son has dyslexia. On his rejection letter they pointed out that parents of children with SEN should not bother to appeal. they have 1.6% of their kids on the SN reg. Where I teach it is 20, the private school where my kids go have arounf 16%

i am just a bitter old cynic, batters

That is really shocking MB, how can they get away with it (the SN kids need not appeal in particular)? Just shows the 'weeding out' problem isn't exclusive to private & grammar schools as you might expect, though I'm sure it's much more common there.

The whole point about the private system is that you can pick the right type of school to suit your child.

Really tired it is not up to the school to change for indicviduals that is ridiculous. If your child is sporty, you pick a sporyt biased school thta allows them to have more sport on their timetable.

If your child is academic you pick an academic school that drives the kids harder and keeps them stimulated.
Ditto for SEN etc etc. If all schools were the same we would call them Comprehensives...and a fat lot of good they turned out like!!

Yeah microwave. Which is why all private school educated people are so sorted, and the other 93% are screwed, yeah?

Yeah microwave. Which is why all private school educated people are so sorted, and the other 93% are screwed, yeah?

Virtually all children who get into the best schools at 4 or 5 pass the exam at 11. I think only one girl left out of 40+ from Habs when my daughter sat for the seniors and that might have been because of financial issues. My daughter was the only one who might have failed and she got in anyway. I don't think in these very good schools they get the admissions at 4 or 5 so wrong that they are turfing lots of children out at 11 therefore my decision, my siser's and my brothers's to get our children into these very good schools at 4 or 5 is actually very wise and it's easier to stay at a school at 11+ than to compete from outside with a load of children from state primaries.

"Which is why all private school educated people are so sorted, and the other 93% are screwed, yeah? "

err Findtheriver those are your words not mine. I'm just pointing out that comprehensives were meant to make everyone equal - getting rid of grammars and selection on academic performance...but they haven't worked out as the answer.

I never said private school kids are so sorted!! you obviously have a big chip resting on your shoulder which stops you seeing from all sides!!!

Comprehensives could never really work, as everyone isn't equal [ducks below parapet awaiting grenades].

It's a fact of life that some children are cleverer than others; some are better at sport/art/music/whatever than others. Not all children are suited to academically-orientated schools, and would be deeply miserable there. And academically clever children should have the opportunity to be educated with other academically clever children.

Oh, and I am definitely one of the 7% of people who are really sorted, thanks to my own private education

I don't think that comprehensives were set up to make everyone equal, but to give everyone equal opertunity to reach their potential, what ever that was.

Are you aware that children who went to a secondary modern school had a fraction of the money spent on them than those when went to grammar school? So those children who needed most help, got least?

Comprehensives are not, and never have been perfect, but those people who trumpet the benefits of the grammar system are seldom people who went to Secondary Modern schools.

Estimates on the difference in funding vary from a child in a secondary moderdern getting a half to a third of the money spent on a child in a grammar school!

The problem with comprehensives is that they so often (not always) give everyone equal opportunity to reach a low standard. It's a nice idea, but could never work in practice...