Dilemma... 'more average' sibling to follow super-bright brother to same school, or somewhere else, with a chance to 'shine'??

[fluffyhamster]

I'm sure we're not the first to have had this dilemma..

DS2 has been/ will almost certainly be offered places at two schools, and we can't decide.

• School 1 is a local independent with an excellent reputation (Top 100 in the country). DS1 is already at this school. Doing well (is super -bright with top scholarship etc) Excellent facilities - esp. music & drama (which DS2 is into).

We weren't sure that DS2 would get offered a place, but he has. However we know that he was in the bottom 20% of those who passed the entrance exam. I worry that he might struggle a little, will always be towards the bottom, and constantly in DS1's shadow. It also seems to be a school where you need to 'find your own feet/ stand up for yourself'. DS2 is not massively confident, and may find it hard.

• School 2 is a local voluntary aided school with fantastic facilities and above average results. Rapidly getting even better, but not the same academic pressure as school 1.

We are lucky to be in the catchment for this school - parents lie and move to get their kids there . Feels a bit more nuturing. Is smaller. I think DS might feel less stressed and more confident here. But he may not 'stretch' himself enough if he can get away with it (he has a tendency to follow the path of least resistance...) Music & drama isn't as good though.

The other consideration is that DS2 is very young (August birthday) and it feels as if he may still be doing some catching up vs. his peer group.
The change in him over the last year has been massive, and in another year it might seem as if he could have coped better with school 1?

I just can't decide.
School 2 would obviously cost less too, but I couldn't bear it if in later years DS2 accused us of sending him to a 'less good' school to save money!
Any wise words?

State grammars often select at a higher level to their independent counterparts.

And state grammars do very well too. I suppose the difference is that theoretically a poor working class child could get into a state grammar. Unlikely but possible.

By counterpart I meant selecting at the same level (or they're not really counterparts....).

Of course they can get in 'seeker', if their parents put them in for the test.

There.

What a crummy post I wrote.

"Of course they can get in 'seeker', if their parents put them in for the test."

LOL. It's not as simple as that is it?

"By counterpart I meant selecting at the same level (or they're not really counterparts....)"

And I meant that state grammar often select at a higher level then the independents. This is simply because many parents have hot housed their children via private prep or intensive tutoring to get in and the selection criteria is simply the top 140 (or whatever the intake is). Certainly the top local independents (the "counterparts" you mention) select based on interview rather than just taking the top 140. They take the children they think will do well, not those who came top in the test. It is not completely comparable.

eg DS1 did not pass either of the state grammars he sat for. However, he was awarded a large academic scholarship for a comparable independent.

Hmm. I was simply saying the outcome is near enough the same where the intake is the same, independent or grammar.

That being said, it's bound to be complex, analysing intake.

I'd like to think MN is not representative of those who sit their children for grammars. I hope the majority don't hot-house, because if hot-housing disguised lack of appropriate ability then many children would go to the wall. And I don't think that happens en masse.

Actually the point about putting them in for the test is important Soup. Possibly the most important thing about tales of tutoring etc. is that some parents are deterred by the perception of a 'middle-class' ethos at grammars and avoid them on social grounds. Very sad.

I have similar issues, although dcs are younger, ds is v bright - effortlessly top in everything. dd is a late august birthday and struggles. We have decided to send them to different schools. ds would thrive in a highly accademic school and we are about to move him to one. We think dd might flounder in such an environment and needs a bit more support to come into her own. Therefore, we have decided to send her to an all girl's school. This also costs less than the school ds would go to. However, objectively, it is absolutely a better fit for dd and I am not sure that the dcs would be aware of the cost difference.

We were totally confident we had made the right decisions and then they both told us how much they liked being at the same school and being there for each other when they needed it. This has shaken us a bit I must say but I still think the decision is right.

The average % of FSM at state grammars in Kent is, I think, 2.5. The average % of FSM in the school population in Kent is about 16.

So unless rich children are intrinsically brighter than poor ones, there is something going on there.......

So unless rich children are intrinsically brighter than poor ones, there is something going on there.......

I think the phrase you are looking for is "there is something not going on there". I have never understood why LEA have Grammar schools and then fail to prepare Primary pupils for the entrance tests. Rich children are tutored and get in; poor children are left to flounder. Who is at fault -the parents or the LEA?

It's worse than that- schools are expressly forbidden to prepare children for the 11+. And technically if it can proved that school did, their 11+ results could be declared null. Could you imagine the uproar if that happened?!

The sutton trust has published interesting analysis of entry to grammars.

I think rich children overall would be brighter than poor children.One or both e parents are more likely to be in jobs which demand a higher level of intelligence and therefore the children are more likely to have 'intelligent' genes.
Now of course there will be many poor children who are very bright and many rich children who are thick as short planks.But overall using a large enough sample I would certainly expect a pattern whereby children from affluent backgrounds were more intelligent than those from poor backgrounds.

Gosh dandelioness that?s a bit controversial I await the responses from others with bated breath.

Ha ha Before they arrive Happy i would just like to reiterate there will be exceptions to the rule

You can reiterate that to your heart?s content I'll still very surprised if your comments don?t bring the wrath of half of MN down on your head! Especially the anti independent ed. brigade.

I don't think it's anything to do with being anti independent school- why on earth should it be? It was just a stupid and ignorant comment. I am assuming that once she has seen it written down in black and White, dandelionss will realise that. Unless she is very poor, obviously.....

How is stupid and ignorant? What do you disagree with?

1. do you think the average vet, doctor, barrister, architect accountant has more academic intelligence than the average manual worker

2. do you not believe that intelligence is a trait which can be inherited?

"No they don't. They do better because they are selective. Even the non selective select on class and wealth."

There are many thick 'class/wealth' kids out there, and there are schools that cater for 'non-academic' posy, rosy and katy. These schools - all of them - work because they are INDEPENDENT of any centralised control. The state, despite it's good intentions, is inherently wasteful and inefficient, and should not be in charge of running a tap.

What is your problem with selection? You are showing your ideology here. Just because YOU believe it to be a bad thing, is it a bad thing?

In your ideology, how do you explain the towering economy of Germany (education entirely based on SELECTION)? And that of Holland? And even, the schools of the former USSR!

The comprehensive education system of the UK system DOESN'T WORK and seriously needs to be dismantled. It would sound the death knell of private schools. I for one would be thrilled.

Dandelion you state a very sad fact, although a little bit clumsily (!).

It is an absolute tragedy that for two children of equal aptitude, by the time they are 4, the child born to the 'middle class' family is already ahead and the deprived child will NEVER catch up. This is a fact that has ministers wringing their hands.

(This is the basis of SureStart, playgroups and reception at 4. To try and intervene early to stop this).

The reasons:

The middle class child is surrounded by books, and is read good night stories from an early age. The middle class child is given more 'face time' with mother/eye contact and the babbling sounds are repeated back as words. The deprived child is shoved in a push chair and driven around the shops at speed facing away from mother with bottle of ribena in hand, much more than a middle class child. The family of the middle class child speaks in grammatically correct sentences. Then we get onto nutrition etc etc.

All these things encourage brain connections to develop.

Sad, sad facts.

Another amazing fact: if you want to find clever deprived children? Look in 'borstals'.

"It is an absolute tragedy that for two children of equal aptitude, by the time they are 4, the child born to the 'middle class' family is already ahead and the deprived child will NEVER catch up. This is a fact that has ministers wringing their hands."

Nobody denies this. But the key is "equal aptitude" Dandelionss, you are saying that children from these diverse background a not going to be or equal aptitude, because rich children are innately cleverer than poor ones. That is why your post was stupid and ignorant.

dandelioness told you! I'm sure there will be more to come.

Happygqrdener- you don't think rich kids are cleverer than poor kids, do you? Please tell me you don't!