"A rose will bloom wherever." True? Experiences?

[fircone]

Ds is by all accounts very bright.

He is off to the local comp this September, which is very good, the best in the county even, but obviously not an academic powerhouse.

Please reassure me that even though he won't be doing classics and wearing a blazer and tie he'll do as well as those who do!

My experience - both of roses and of children -is that they don't always bloom and grow.

school is important yes but equally parents who imbue value of education and good work ethos

hope he settles well.but you say it is good school so no reason he wont

I don't think a rose will bloom wherever, but I think some people get far too hung up on private education. Home environment counts for a hell of a lot. And IME, the things that stick with a kid, and inspire them, can be quite arbitrary, eg coming across one particular teacher who inspires them. I had an English teacher at A level (in a comp) who inspired me to go on to do an English degree. Of course, when you look at broad statistics, thensome private or selective schools are going to achieve higher grades overall - there would be something seriously wrong if they didn't! Doesn't necessarily mean they are adding value though.

I think a lot of this comes doen to parental confidence. If you lack confidence, or if you are a product of the private or grammar system yourself, and are fearful of anything else, you probably tend to look at overall statistics. If you look at your child individually,you will look beyond that and think 'Is my child going to achieve their potential?' And let's be honest, in a high achieving comp, where a bright child will be in top sets alongside other A/A* grade kids, then it's highly likely they will succeed.

educational attainment of parents is a big predictor of child education attainment.children of parents who have attained degree/professional qualifications are more likely themselves to attain the same, than children whose parents have not

obviously there are exceptions

i was the 1st person in my family to attend uni and attain professional qualifications.as mu working class parents really pushed education and sticking in at school

I suspect my children are weeds rather than roses anyway, likely to flourish in any old crack in the pavement (and I don't particularly mean academically, I mean in a wider sense).

I do agree Oxbridge, or Russell Group Universities, aren't the be-all and end-all of education, I am not so bothered whether my children want to go to these institions or not (as a true leftie I'd happily abolish Oxbridge despite having enjoyed my time there). But this thread, from the OP onwards, seemed to be concerned with the question of academic performance, that's why people have responded in this way.

violethill - I'm sure that's why some parents choose private but by no means all. Certainly among my DCs school friends a lot f parents are first time buyers iyswim.
I attended a comp, so did DH, I volunteer in a local state primary. I have never been inside a GS and until I visted DCs school had never stepped foot in an indie school, so really we made a choice from a place of experience and knowledge.

And I'm absolutely confident that my DCs quals would be similar wherever they went - I'm really not trying to buy examination results. I just want their garden ( to milk the analogy) to be green and gorgeous.

At 18 none of this will have mattered of course when they're all in Uni. But today it matters very, very much and for me that's as important as the future.

What is a Russell university?

My childrens' (state) gardens are green and gorgeous also - as are thousands and thousands of others

Russell Universities are basically traditional type universities, and distinguish themselves by the amount of research they do.

In these days when everyone's a university, certain employers will look for graduates for Russell Universities.

There is an even more elite group called the Sutton 13 (or some such number.)

But the key is that these universities will, in the main, be looking for A Levels in the traditional subjects, and sadly, too many 16 year olds from comps slip up at this stage - taking film studies because they think it will be more interesting than German.

It would be so easy to fix - I do wonder whether there's a type of reverse snobbery in play.

Children - and roses - sometimes take their time. They don't always flourish between 11 and 18.

russell group

durham uni operate an admissions formula to adjust for school attended. more points if state school applicant,less if private school applicant.in recognition of fact that an achieving pupil from state school has had less resources etc than equivalent grade from private

But does society need German graduates or those with degrees in film studies? My guess is that we need more plumbers and electricians - no university education (from the Russell lot or otherwise) required there, and of far more use to the economy, perhaps?!

I would like to see far more emphasis on vocational qualifications - but that's probably for another thread.

You practically need a degree to be an electrician these days the amount of exams and regulations involved.
3 years to qualify.
The days when you could leave at 16 and work your way up are completely over, Labours plan that 50% should go to university now means you have to attend university to get any job, it's completely devalued a degree and means that graduates starting salaries are 2/3's of what I earnt 15 years ago.

my advice- do vocational degree at uni.a qualification that is protected,takes time to obtain.that has defined career structure and specialisms

in no paerticular order

medicine
law
teaching
accountancy
Architecture
Social work
pharmacy
occupational therapy,Physio,SALT

There's nothing wrong with keeping the top universities 'elite' but EVERYONE should be given the opportunity to apply, and shouldn't be disadvantaged before they even get off the starting blocks by taking the 'wrong' A levels or whatever. They should be informed properly at every stage, which subjects are needed. So you don't end up wanting to do Medicine for example at 16 having not taken the correct GCSEs to even give you a chance.

So in that sense, a 'rose will bloom' or whatever AS LONG as they have all the right info. I do think in some schools they are peddling soft subjects, which is fair enough, as long as the pupil/parent realises they are limiting their choice of university, again IF that is what they are wanting for their child.

Absolutely agree, both with the fact that too much emphasis on Getting A Degree has devalued them, and that a vocational qualification studied to degree level is probably the best way to go.

If all these state schools are as good as some people are implying and that children will succeed wherever, then why would their pupils need a ' leg up' from places like Durham, scottishmummy? It sounds like blatant discrimination to me.

Why are we so anti- elitist in this country, knocking anyone who spends their money on education? Why not the make state schools as good as the independent schools? Comprehensive schools do not really exist in this country - only in idealists' minds - as they are not a true mix of abilities and social groups, yet a whole generation and more have been experimented on and the results have not been spectacular. An examination system which breaks down every subject into bite-sized gobbets hardly demands critical thinking - hence we now have a separate subject for that! In our rush to be ' fair' I think we threw the proverbial baby out some years ago.

And liberal lefties can suddenly come over quite right wing when they realise their own children are not flourishing.

yes,it is- positive discrimination but no imo discrimination is "positive".

far better to interview
outreach to state schools encourage applicants from range of background
make offer on grade and interview

Campion - well said. Last year some deluded teachers union leader declared that as independent schools get better results than state schools (her analysis, not mine) indies should be abolished In other words, lets level everyone down. The last person I want to be 'leading' people guiding my children's education.

Campion - Excellent post.

Who's anti-elitist? I couldn't give a rat's arse what you choose to spend your money on quite frankly, but please let's stop putting state schools down. Given that about 90% of parents send their children to state schools, one would think that the economy would have ground to a halt years ago given the way that some people appear to perceive state education. It hasn't, and it doesn't. State schools produce the top professions if that's what floats your boat, and they also produce every other profession needed to run the economy - the bin men, the nurses, the teachers, the shop keepers. As has been said before, education is about so much more than simply results.

At the end of the day somebody has to be the CEO and somebody has to empty the bins, if there is anything in my power I can do to ensure mine aren't the former then I will and that is all an education will buy you, the choice between the two, then it's up to the children to decide.
The only thing that worries me is I worked my ass off to ensure my children wouldn't have to have the shite schooling I suffered, I worry what their motivation will be.

One thing which is very important to teenagers (and possibly to roses as well) is their peer group. This influences them more than anything.

So you can send your children to expensive selective independent schools, and they can still mix with children who just don't care about academic work, and only focus on the latest designer stuff or some such silliness.

Equally children can go to Rough St Comprehensive and still find sensible friends.

The only nagging worry is that if a rose is trying to bloom and being choked with weeds, russian vines and ivy, it might just not grow at all.

Ultimately I think we have to trust our children, don't we?

Agree Quattro.