Have you ever made a decision right for your family that seriously compromised your beliefs?

[seeker]

We live in an 11+ area. My daughter took the test and passed and is going to an excellent girls grammar school in September. She is delighted and I am very proud of her - she worked hard and she will love the school - lots of sport and music and an amazing academic record. The problem is that I am, and always have been, passionately opposed to selective education. If I had stuck to my principles, she would have not taken the test at all and gone to the nearest school, which is an OK high school. I think she would have done well there too, but the grammar school offers so much more and it would have been wrong to deny her the opportunity...or would it? 76% of other 11 year olds are being denied it - what makes dd so special? And how will the system ever change if people like me don't stand against it? Help me find ways of not feeling bad about this, please!!!!! (I know there aren't actually any ways of not feeling bad, but I can hope!)

I won't judge you, but I think the sensible answer to this is to admit that you are not as passionately opposed to selection as you'd like to think.

Reasons to feel good about this:-
You are doing this because it is best for your childs present
It is best for her future
The Dc's in the other school will get a little more attention from teachers because your child will not be there
Your Dd will never feel unfullfilled as she will be well educated to her ability
Does that help?

if it helps, I have always been vehemently opposed to private schools - until I realised how desperately unhappy my ds is at school, where his specific learning difficulties make him struggle and he hates the whole school regime and structure. If it were financially feasible, I would eat everyone of my old socialist principles along with a good dose of Humble Pie and send him to to a lovely, private school with minute class sizes and TLC...{wry smile)

i agree, unquiet dad. i am similar to you, seeker, in that i THINK i am opposed to selective ed. when my ds is 16 MONTHS old, but i'm already convinced that we'll move before he goes to secondary school (we live in london, newham, and schools are terrible). so, it is kind of a conviction 'in theory'.

at least she is going there because of her talents and not because you're paying for a good education.

something I'm struggling with now - we live in the Middle East and its common for families to have maids live in - and they're treated like skivvies. I've been brought up to believe that self-sufficiency is a part of being a responsible person (that don't expect someone to do something you won't do yourself thing) and I dislike the idea of DS seeing another person in this light. I also want him to see that we all have to be able to look after ourselves.

Its culturally very ingrained here and getting a maid is the logical, pragmatic solution when DH goes back to work. But I can't get past the idea that its one step above indentured servitude (we'd be providing everything and would be expected to hold her passport by law).

that said... its better on my side of the equation than the other side

agree with unquietdad.

Hard hat on, I am passionately in favour of selective eductation. I believe that all children should have equal rights and equal opportunities but it is a fallacy to assume that they have equal abilities in every way. Where the previous system fell down was in only valuing the accademic grammar schools and not selecting and valuing children on the grounds of other abilities to do other things. I think I would take the view that accademic selection is fine but we should camapaign for equal resources, funding and value to be placed on other areas of education. The emphasis on the accademic has led a generation of children to believe that they will only be valued if they go the University which many of them are ill suited for and they end up with a qualification which is of no interest or use to either them or an employer. We need to change our values

Many people find it hard to stick to their political principles when it affects them directly. Unquietdad did put it well - It is your decision to make and only you can give yourself peace of mind, whatever the choice.

nice post GooseyLoosey.

unquietdad, I think that is a bit harsh on seeker.
She is against selection, but she unfortunately lives in a selection area. Therefore she had no neutral choice. Either her dd would go to a school that was artificially "improved" by only having the brightest children, or one that was artificially "made worse" (cant think of better phrase) by having the brightest children removed.

therefore, imo, she has the moral right to choose whichever school she wants. If she had ignored a GENUINELY non-selective school on her doorstep, then your comment would perhaps be justified.

goosey, come and live in bavaria then, where your child will be selected for the university stream - or not - aged 10. Utterly schrecklich System, imo.

problem is, nightynight, none of us can have our principles in a vacuum - they all have to reflect the real world. If you really are opposed to selection in principle then you will never use it, otherwise the principle is meaningless - what if you were opposed to private education, but claimed all the state schools in your area were really dire so you "had" to use a private school? It would ring a little hollow.

I'm with GooseyLoosey on the whole thing - equal provision does not mean identical.

I don't think it is harsh to point out that seeker, in choosing a grammar over an adequate high school, is probably not as passionately opposed to selective schooling as she once thought, is it?

Agree with UQD and Scummy Not harsh just factual surely?

Totall agree with Gooseyloosey - an excellent post.

I'm with Gooseyloosey on this as well (though DS is only 2 so it's not something I'm all that worried about yet).
As to the OP, well I kind of think I ought to stop going to one if not two of the mum and toddler groups we attend because they are both pushing more and more religion at us. Which irritates the crap out of me, yet when I'm not fending off the invites to services, or quietly removing DS when they start saying f**ing prayers, he has a good time there.

I think I will just go off and shoot myself.....
Goosey - I might be less opposed to selective education if it was genuinely by ability. However, I know that there are children in dd's class who are just as bright as she is, but don't have the family support they need to pass the test. There are 60 children in year 6 in her school, 34 took the test, 11 passed. nearly all girls and ALL from professional middle class families. I'm not making this any easier for myself, am I?!

Why shoot yourself? Lots of people are in favour of selection.

seeker - think of your own child, not anybody else's. Don't beat yourself up about it. It's what everyone else does.

unquietdad, thats exactly my point, that noone lives in a vacuum.

seeker was part of the selective system, whether she wanted to be or not, so which school she chose was irrelevant.

Seeker - I personally am in favour of selective education, but I would like it to work properly and select the children who are genuinely bright and not just those who are bright and also have the right sort of parents. So I see totally why you are uncomfortable with the situation as you describe it.

However maybe with your child at the school you will be in a position to help influence the school's selection policies in the right direction - become a parent governor and make a stink about the selection process and how it could be made fairer, perhaps?

It never used to be the case that grammar schools were quite so full of the middle classes - my parents and PILs were all working class children who passed the 11 plus but I understand that is very rare these days

I disagree there, nightynight. There was a choice between a grammar or a comprehensive. Someone who was genuinely anti-selection would have chosen the non-selective option. I don't think you should beat yourself up for changing your views though, seeker. Everyone does what they feel best suits their child.

but scummy, it wasnt non selective. It was a secondary modern, effectively, becuase the brighter (or more middle class) children had been creamed off.

I see what you're saying, nightynight, but there are always ways round if you really can't stomach it.

A lot of people, like me, disagree with the comprehensive system and really do have no alternative. I don't have a choice of a selective option, unless we pay or pray. Or move to a different county.

Secondary moderns as such don't exist anymore, as I understand it, because England no longer has a selective system per se, even if some grammars remain. The 11+ is not compulsory and anyone in the right catchment can go to a high school (if it's not religious). I concede that in some areas high schools may have a less "academic" intake because of proximity to a grammar but there will still be a range of abilities and the children will follow the national curriculum. seeker- i think that you have no reason to feel bad. I'm sure that you and your family have chosen the school that you think is right for your daughter within the options that you felt you had. I think that is all we can do as parents, really.