"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!

Quattro - But if you really trusted your children with sole charge of their education, why would you feel the need to pay for indepenent schooling?

In part, I pay to filter their peer group. Not for any snobbish reasons but in order to make sure they aren't in a environment where it's uncool to learn stuff. (Which was my experience after DS1's first two years at a state comp that was widely viewed as outstanding.)

I wouldn't recommend entrusting children with sole charge of their education, because I think that would be abdicating responsibility. I think showing an interest in their curriculum, discussing coursework/homework, and of course having total involvement in their education in the broadest sense (travelling, reading etc) is vital.

But I do think that the cotton wool approach of trying to limit the influences on your child to a very narrow range, can backfire, if not in the short term then certainly in the longer term. Once they are 16, they are likely to have opinions about where they want to continue their education (hopefully they will anyway, unless they are sheep!). And at 18, they will be making their own decisions, moving off to University, choosing who they live with, what they study, when they study etc. Unless you are the sort of parent who really tried to control your child at this stage (and I'm afraid I've come across a few, who meddle in University applications etc !) then you really need to view education as a process of becoming an independent thinker and learner.

I visited Summerhill recently and their ethos is very much that children must be allowed to make their own decisions. Many friends who home educate take the smae view.

I do try to take a fairly minimalist approach in respect of my own DCs education, but admit that I have chosen to pay for what I see to be the most conducive environment in which to make their own mistakes.

In many ways perhaps I am exercising more control than most. I hope not.

Ay, there's the rub, Swedes. I do think that at academically selective schools (be they fee-paying or otherwise) there are more children who want to learn and learning isn't uncool. It's less of a battle for them.

Most schools at secondary level are academically selective though, in terms of actually setting the pupils for teaching? I can't think of any secondary schools in my area which teach mixed ability apart from maybe a few subjects like core PE? I agree that in the top sets you are likely to have more pupils who are really keen to learn.

Is that right about setting VH? My local comps set in english and maths at around 13 but history, french, art, etc ect are not set until GCSE stage.

Should say I'm only talking about a hnadful where DCs friends attend - so not claiming this as representative.

Yes, the comps round here set from Year 7 for most subjects. My dc does PE in mixed ability (core PE not GCSE) but that's all.

At my Dd's comp they set only for Maths and Science and from talking to others it's the same for most schools around here. I wish they did set for all subjects.

That sounds very unusual these days magenta. I went to a comp where everything was totally mixed ability but that was 30 years ago - education has moved on since then! Having said that, I did fine and went on to University etc which I guess backs up the premise of this thread! I was sitting O levels in the same class as kids who were doing CSEs or even not being entered for exams!

Fortunately the merits of setting by ability are well known now, and it certainly seems the norm in every school I've taught in that pupils are set.

I wouldn't be happy at all if my child was set for only Science and Maths

No, VH, friends of mine are not happy about it at all. On eof the schools is in a very affluent area and the children do well regardless. The main problem is that the super bright are not adequately challenged and those struggling find it hard. The work is taught to the middle - which in this case is quite able.

I'm surprised they get away with it in an affluent area with bright kids. Why aren't the parents kicking up a stink? The teachers would more than likely be in favour of setting too - makes our job far easier!

Just read the Sutton Report and from this I think the main point the OP needs to consider is that with the sane A level results the top independent schools are getting a much higher percentage of pupils into the top universities than even selective state schools.
This is not down to the old fashioned idea that universities are biased towards them (Durhams method of selection proves that). But that these schools have got university admissions down to a fine art. They know the system. The support they give re. personal statements, references and general encouragement is oustanding. They teach around the national curriculum and exam syllabus. The grades achieved at the end are very similar but not the university admissions rates.

Maria - three of the Sutton 13 are not Russell Group so I'm not sure why the Sutton Trust regards them as more elite anyway. Their top 13 are based on league table performance which is not exactly a perfect science anyway.

Don't roses need to be fed a lot of shit before they grow?

Just remember every rose has its thaaaaawn. Just like every night has its dawwwwwn. Just like every cowboy sings his sad, sad, saaawng.

Speaking as an ex-comp pupil with v good academics and "City" job working alongside mostly ex-public school boys, I would not worry at all about the academic side of things, except he might be a bit bored from time to time so encourage reading etc. at home (as I'm sure you do anyway).

Socially the best thing for boys at comps seems to be to be decent at football. I would focus more on getting him into sports from this point of view. My bros at same school as me were not that keen on sport and we all agree they would have had a nicer time if they had been.

He will meet plenty of nice kids there including other bright kids anyway, don't worry!

Hope it all goes well.

Titchy - Isn't Durham a non Russell Group uni? I suspect the Sutton 13 is more representative of the top research universities that Russell Group.

No, Durham is not Russell Group - it's too small. Neither is Edinburgh or St Andrews and they appear on Sutton 13 (free the Sutton 13...?!). I don't trust any grouping made up solely by league table position though - particularly as the NSS contributes towards league table scores and the NSS isn't worth the paper it's written on.

That Sutton 13 league table is interesting, but league tables of universities are a bit suspect. It isn't very related to the research ratings as shown in the RAE - I think Manchester was 4th in the last RAE and doesn't appear in the Sutton 13. Meanwhile my institution comes very high, sometimes first, in student popularity league tables, and there's no way it's in the top 10 for research, nor is it one of the hardest to get into - it has a pleasant student social scene, great leisure opportunities, and a lot of satisfied students. So it does very well in league tables.

x-posts Titchy but I think we're saying the same thing.

Fircone: Is the school in question Th. in Ch. Fd.?

Or was it you who went to SWGS?

I recall your nom de plume (!!) in some earlier discussions!

FWIW I'm ex SWGS and DS1 will be going to Th!

Titchy Edinburgh is a Russell group Uni

• University of Birmingham
• University of Bristol
• University of Cambridge
• Cardiff University
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• Imperial College London
• King's College London
• University of Leeds
• University of Liverpool
• London School of Economics & Political science
• University of Manchester
• Newcastle University
• University of Nottingham
• Queen's University Belfast
• University of Oxford
• University of Sheffield
• University of Southampton
• University College London
• University of Warwick

AS a foreigner a bit confused, I feel the advantage of private schools is the choice they have of subjects, I'm a fan actually of Latin
all very confusing

I've taught in a city girls school and a pretty rough inner city mixed school. There were some children who left with 10 A*s. They were children from supportive backgrounds e.g. expected to do homework, parents were governors. They also tended to be children with strength of character, who made good friendship choices and who were popular with all.
There were however, many bright children who simply did ok. A lot of time was wasted during lessons where there was poor behaviour and in mixed ability classes, bright children rarely had much challenge.

Yep, Faraday, it is Th.

The thing is, I'm not really bothered about private schools, because a) too poor! and b) round our way the schools are about as truly comprehensive as you can get: hardly anyone sends their dcs to fee-paying schools. In fact the sort of people I see outside the fancy prep school next door to us are rather...erm... footballers' wifey and drive in from footballery kind of outskirts.

My concern is I suppose that, as others have mentioned, ds's destination does not set until GCSE. And there is no Latin. And so I wonder if ds would have been better off in a selective school.