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!)

in answer to the op, IMO you're absolutely doing the right thing! We want what's best for our children, don't we? And this is it, in yr opinion. Many of my principles have gone out ofthe window since being a parent, others have become more deeply-rooted, I guess it's part of growing up/old andof being realistic.

Seeker - what I was trying to say is it is not a level playing field and never will be, but you have to choose which bumps you want to try and level out. You (I think) believe the selective school is best for your daughter - enjoy her going there and celebrate her achievent - it is right that accademically able children are supported in that. Look instead at how the system lets down the other children who did not get into the selective school. Your daughter has got what she deserved - some of the other children may not have done and we will change things by focusing on what these children's strengths are rather than trying to force everyone to conform to the same model.

there wont be many children at the comprehensive who could have passed the 11+ though.
the whole selective school thing really annoys me. Round here, it is the middle class children with educated,non working parents who get to the grammar school (gymnasium) - simply because of the amount of coaching needed.

We got a huge mortgage (well for us)to make sure ds got into the right school.I have always hated huge debts and been of the if you can't afford it don't go there mentality.

DH agreed that DS1 could go to an independent school. DH had failed his 11+, gone to a "Technical School" (between grammar and secondary modern) and had managed to get a scholarship to Oxford. He was opposed to selection, but agreed that the school was the best place for DS1. After our experiences with the local comprehensive for DS2 he would now be happy to put a child through independent education (though he would prefer that state schools were better).

you don't know that though Nighty.

There may be plenty who could have passed but didn't have the family support or extra tutoring that a lot of kids have.

I have moved to a white, Tory heartland where people read the Hate Mail and wonder why Thatcher had to go.

Schools are excellent, though.

I help in dd's class and I am absolutely sure that there were at least 5 - probably 7 children who could have passed the 11+ if they had recieved the family support that the others did. AND there were lots more who would have passed if they had recieved the hours of expensive tutoring that a couple of the people who passed only passed because of - if you see what I mean!
My daughter was not tutored by the way - but she has been read to and encouraged and supported and had interest shown in her since birth!

Seeker do you think you would feel differently if you felt that the outcome had been more fair - say, if it had all ended up with a bunch of kids from poorer or unsupportive backgrounds getting through to the good school?

Am pro-selection always have been but then I'm a died in the wool Tory who admired MT and occasionally reads the 'hate' Daily Mail

76% of other 11 year olds are being denied it but there is nothing you can do about that in the same way that certain drugs/treatments are denied to a %age of patients because they live within a certain Local Authority - only way to change it is at the ballot box.

Life sometimes isn't fair but by your own words your dd has worked hard, is delighted and will be happy there - don't spoil it for her.

You may stand against selective education but there are those of us who stand for it.

Fight?

Yes - it is the unfairness of the system that really upsets me. Particularly when those in favour of the grammar school system put it forward as a way to open doors for clever children from less advantaged backgrounds. It may once have been, but it most definitely is not now. It's now yet another way for the educated middle classes to work the system to their advantage. Nadine - no, I won't spoil it for her - she has been walking on air since March 3rd, and her confidence has taken the most amazing leap forward. This is me venting my private angst!
Unquietdad, merrymarigold and scummymummy - what would you have done - and how would you have explained your decision to your dc?

I'd say you can't be that opposed if you are happy for her to go there!

See, it's all very well disagreeing with these things in principle isn't it!

hard to say, as I've not been in that ideological position. I think you did the right thing.

'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.'

What do you mean though? How are you going to do that? It's just logical that parental support is an advantage and I don't know what you can do about that.

Seeker, you also said that only half of the children in the year sat the 11+ - did you not have a choice about whether your dd sat it? If you were so passionately opposed to selective education why did you allow her to sit the paper?

I'm not trying to be nasty - I'm just trying to understand.

My first preference would be to send my children to a good comprehensive, seeker, so I guess if i lived in your area I'd probably choose the high school and tell my kids that I think dividing children into different schools on the grounds of how they do at a particular test at 11 is wrong and that I believe they will benefit educationally from being at a school with people with a range of abilities anyway. But I can't say definitely what I'd do in your personal circumstances because I'm not in them and am not you. And, you know what? If I genuinely believed my children would be desperately unhappy everywhere except at a private religious grammar school I'm sure I'd sell my body to an affluent vicar on the board of governers and then blackmail him/her for their entry on a scholarship despite their longterm status as thick children of atheists. Anyway- you should stop angsting, you know. The main thing is that dd is happy and I hope that she'll love her school.

'I believe they will benefit educationally from being at a school with people with a range of abilities anyway.'

That's interesting - why do you think that scummy?

Gobbledigook - that's a very good question.

There are kids who do well because they are getting a huge amount of extra parental support, but also those who do well without that support. Some will have been coached for the test, others might be just as bright but haven't had the extra coaching.
Certainly in my parents' day there were many, many academically clever children whose parents weren't helping them academically, either because they couldn't or because they didn't care.

I honestly don't know how far it is possible to devise an entrance test that separates out ability from achievement - I'm guessing you would have to keep changing the tests to keep one step ahead of the private tutors, and try and make the tests as culturally-neutral as possible.

Not sure if I've really answered your question?

Destruction of the selective system by infiltration - I like it .

I'd be made up if my dd passed the 11+ (mainly as moi failed it) and went to a good grammar school so don't beat yourself up about it. You could always refuse the place and opt for the nearest comprehensive or Academy school instead but think of the effect on your daughter.

Note to Meomix - just because you have a live in maid doesn't mean you have to treat her like a skivvie. These women want to work, their salary is important to them and to their families back home. You can have live in help for childcare and still teach your children to be self sufficient i.e make their own beds, pick up their toys etc. You can pay her a decent wage, treat her well etc. Why is that wrong?

Yes, all those things are true. It's very difficult and, don't get me wrong, I agree that tutoring to pass the 11+ is ridiculous. Aside from disadvantaging those children that don't get tutored, it could also disadvantage those that are, that get into the grammar school and then find themselves sinking in a school that they just aren't suited for (or isn't suited for them).

In terms of parental help and support - I just don't know. It's obviously an advantage and it's incredibly sad that some children just don't get it. They are disadvantaged by this right from the word go. Ds1 is only in year 1 and I go in to read with the children. Those that are in the lower group, needing additional sessions within school are those whose reading books are never filled in by their parents, so I'm assuming they just don't get read with. You could say ds1 is already at an advantage because I read with him every night, we put number work and puzzles into everything we do - you know the kind of thing I mean, the stuff most of us on MN probably do but lots of parents don't.

So it's not even at the point of sitting the 11+ at which parental support is helping them, it's right from the word go.

I must admit, it was a key reason for my career choice when ds1 was born. I ditched my career that was going brilliantly well, to become a work at home freelancer. Already I feel it's helping ds1 as we get time every evening to do spellings and reading - and not at the point where he's dropping off to sleep either.

We live in an area where there is still the 11+ and we have excellent state grammar schools. I'm hoping that my being around to help the boys with school coupled with the fact that they go to an 'outstanding' (by Oftsed inspection) school negates the need for me to use private education and that, should it be right for them, they'll get into the state grammar.

Hmm, I've almost forgotten my point now! Well, I just don't see how you can change the fact that some children have that kind of support (whatever the parent's circumstances because it's obviously not just SAHPs that provide it!) or how you can factor that in to the tests.

In addition, if you need that kind of support to see you through, perhaps, the tougher years at grammar school then maybe it's not so flawed after all? I just don't know.

@ yesireallycan (which I keep reading as yes sir i really can....) - my aunt had this issue in South Africa in the 1970's - she was expected to have a maid, even though it made her feel deeply uncomfortable.

So she decided she was going to be the best employer possible to her maid, treated her well, paid her a decent wage, etc etc, everything you suggest - and after a month or so the local housewives came around to her en-masse and complained that she was letting the side down by treating her maid like a human being - it was making all their maids resentful!

She moved back to the UK shortly afterwards...

Meowmix, I do hope this won't be your experience!

"could have" is likely to stay "could have" though. realistically. In no way is this school a genuinely non-selective school.

I also live in a selective area, and 65% of parents here pay someone to help their child with homework and to try to get into the grammar school. The brightest children with the keenest parents are thus creamed off, and the rest are divided into 2 schools - the realschool for future bank clerks, and the high school for future supermarket cashiers.
I loathe this system, and whichever school my children get into, is not the right school as far as I am concerned.
You could say that the high school is "non selective" because it takes the children who really couldnt get into one of the other schools, so it will take anybody - but I feel absolutely no moral obligation to send my child to such a disadvantaged school.

As a matter of fact, I intend to move us away from this crappy school system.

Scummymummy - I agree with you.And that's what my initial decision was. However, doing that would have put my dd in a school with no orchestra or choir, combined science instead of physics, chemistry and biology,only one foreign language option, limited sports facilities and a minute library. I would also have had to explain to her that she was not going with her friends to a school that provided all those things for the greater good and for my political principles. I wonder if you could really have done that. I admire you if you could have. I couldn't.

note to yesreallyIcan - you're absolutely right but the problem is that these women are terrified of losing their jobs (and passports) and so won't discipline the kids/say no to sweets/TV whatever, and because they have a perfectly understandable need to please they do everything for the kids and for you and get very panicy if you do things for yourself. Our office boy came in sobbing because he wasn't here when I wanted a cup of tea and I made it myself - to him that meant he was no longer needed and I was unhappy with his work. Getting someone past that is very tough (after 9 months he still gets very upset if I make tea) and its human nature to take things easy when you can. Thats what we have to guard against.

I do think it must be very hard to say no if her good friends are going, yes. Did all her friends take and pass the exam? And it sounds like the facilities and extra curricular activities are great at the grammar. I would like my children to be able to participate in music at school too. I think it's shocking that there is no music happening at the high school, frankly.

ggg- I think I learned a lot from other children going to a big comprehensive. There were children with a wide range of experiences, abilities etc. I think it opened my eyes to the world in a way that they otherwise would not have been. Academically it can be a benefit too, ime. I remember age around 12 being paired (against both our wills!) with a boy to do a writing project for English. He was bright enough but a bit unmotivated and found writing difficult while knowing exactly how he wanted to approach things. I loved writing and hated boys telling me what to do. Once we stopped fighting we came up with a bloody masterpiece and I think genuinely learned a lot from each other. But I think we might have been in different schools if they had divided according to attainment in our area. I'm not sure I would have passed the 11+ but am pretty sure he would not have done. He's just one of many examples I could give you. Another was being asked to explain my take on Richard III to a non reader with special needs in my class who was completely confused. In reaching to use language simple enough for him to understand and really thinking about how he could relate to the subject i realised that i did not in fact know enough myself and needed to do some more work. Really good teachers occasionally used the mixed abilities to fantastic effect like that, with everyone benefiting. That kid was probably responsible for me acing my Richard III project, though the fact that i had a bizarre schoolgirl crush on Richard after seeing his National Gallery portrait and reading Josephine Tey probably didn't hurt either. I know I tend to be optimistic and idealistic about comprehensive schooling but tbh that stems from my own largely positive experience, not from political principles per se. And i was quite a quirky odd kid in many ways, thinking back. There was every chance I could have been a fish out of water. Definitely not a social butterfly fitting in type. Eager to please adults and keen to work. And socially I was posher than most, which i found embarrassing. All of which sounds like a recipe for disaster in some ways. Yet all was broadly ok. I think I was pretty lucky and would have no qualms about my children having a similar experience.