Super-selective or all-round?

[mydogisinsane]

I've got a bit of a dilemma and need some sage advice from you clever parents.

DS is at a non-academically selective prep and is doing very well. In the top sets for everything, in the top 5 pupils in his year academically. Fairly sporty too and very happy. He has friends of all abilities. His prep has suggested to us that DS would have a decent chance of getting an academic scholarship for senior school.

Where I live there are no very academically selective senior schools, the nearest are an hours drive or train journey away - a door-to-door commute to one of these would be 3 hours a day!

There is a lovely, traditional type school within a short drive of my home, but it is not very academically selective, so its results are consequently lower. We have visited all the schools in question, and really like the non-selective one, it seems to offer so much more than just academia, it felt like DS would have fun there, loads of extra-curricular activities, nice atmosphere, not at all "stuck-up", great sport, drama, pastoral care etc. etc.

DS would have a great shot at a scholarship and even being put forward for one by his current school would put him in the scholar's programme.

I was quite happy with my decision, (he is doing well in a non-selective environment at the moment) but, children talk, and some of the other parents have found out about our plans and are openly critical of our choice. I have had comments like "why do you want to throw away his guarantee of 10 A's", and "it's a rubbish school, they take anyone". (there are some very odd parents where he is, who feel they can comment on every aspect of other people's lives). These parents are quite happy to make their DC's do this awful commute, if it means them going to the super-selective school.

I should stick with the decision I am happy with shouldn't I? I know that and I am not at all weak-willed but I am still feeling a little twitch of doubt and would welcome any comments from people who might have been in a similar position.

Doesn't always work, though - try Kimberley v Kate, say.

Do they stream at the closer school? Do they regularly send their top pupils to Oxbridge and other Russell Group universities. If so, no contest.

You should also bear in mind that some children flounder in the super selective environment, where they may be discouraged by the extraordinary abilities of others in their cohort. (Not saying this will apply to your DS, of course, just something to consider.)

bread - by 'Kate' do you mean Catherine Elizabeth Middleton? Thanks for making my point. :)

Wow this thread has really taken off in my absence.

I don't want to send my son to a school just so he can mix with people called Tabitha, Tarquin and Bennedict pusheed - I'm not quite that shallow - I studiously avoid people like that and one of the things I most liked about the non-selective school was the lack of stuck-up attitude and competitive parenting which I noticed when we visited the selective school.

My local state school is only just achieving National Average for GCSE and with nearly 1600 pupils, I feel DS would be lost there. The large crowds of teenagers gathered outside its gates smoking every lunchtime puts me off a little too.
(of course I am not naive enough to think any school is immune from real life problems).

We have made our decision. DS is over the moon at the prospect of going there, and I thank you all for your input. It has really helped.

PS - both me and DS only have one syllable in our names, if that makes you all feel better.

The boys we know called "Maximus" and "Augustus" are both going off to board somewhere in middle England.

I think you have made the right decision, OP. I can't really understand why the current school even suggested a school with such a long commute as a possibilty. Presumably some of their pupils live nearer, but the school know your address. Going to the distant school would restrict his opportunities for extra-curriclar activities and would leave little time for even doing his homework (unless he can work on a train or needs very little sleep).

Regarding the guarantee of 10 A grades; if a school only takes pupils with the potential to get these grades, then it can more or less guarantee them. If the same pupil goes to another school, they are likely to do just as well there - it's just that not so many of the other pupils, (pupils who would have had no chance of a place at the super-selective) will be getting these grades.

mydog - You two only have one syllable but what about your DCs? Be honest :)

I have a goddaughter named Tabitha who went to her local state primary, then to the nearest 11-16 comp, then to the associated sixth form college. Admittedly she did then get an offer from a pretty very ancient Oxford college but still - she failed spectacularly until then to conform to the stereotype.

On commutes, they can provide downtime which can substitute for downtime at home, so not necessarily prejudicial to ecs at all. Plenty of children at our school have long commutes and many say it's the most enjoyable part of the day. That said, having done long distance since Y3 myself, I'm glad my DC only have a skip and a hop to their school. Not that they then use the freed up time in any particularly ennobling way, but that's a separate point.

I wanted to call my first child Tabitha, when I was a kid. This was because I really liked Bewitched. When I suggested the name to DH he said it sounded like a cat so that was that. :(

Good call thetasigmamum DH.

As for the other name mentioned, Benedict, I'm unfortunately far too closely acquainted with one of those and would gladly pay £15k a year to avoid him or his ilk. Worth every last penny.

imo the parents at current school are daft - of course they're more likely to get 10 A's if it's superselective - doesn't mean the teaching's any better - just means they've started with a bright intake. Personally I'd go with the allround any time - quality of life, having local friends etc very important vs the long commute. Having said that, I suppose you'd want to ask if there is streaming at the non-selective school - you wouldn't want DS getting bored....

If your son is bright enough and works hard enough to get 10 A*s then he will get them wherever you send him. Like neolara said, if he has that capacity, he could do it at a state comprehensive (plenty do). It is also possible, if he is tired from commuting 3 hours a day, if he is fed up because he can't stay at school to do games, drama, music etc then that may impact his academic achievement. I think your gut feeling is correct.

Please don't listen to the other parents. They are not polite enough or mature enough to respect the fact that other people have different values to their own. The fact you have chosen more of an "all round" school for your son should ensure that he does not turn out like that.

riverside - You must have outstanding DCs. :o I mean, mine
needed to be pushed. Otherwise they are happy to be 'average'.

In their primary school DCs were top table for everything but their first set of tracking grades at their Year 7 indie had them in the bottom 30% of their respective class. Christmas had them at 50% and the recent one had them at 70%. We reckon that DCs will get into the top 20% and then plateau for their remaining school years.

We all have stories of siblings or DCs or friends who coast and still end up with a First at University but for most children they aren't naturally clever or self motivating.

Pusheed, are you PushyDad?

I'm not advocating the OP travels to the more selective school. But I can't help but wonder if being in a super selective improves motivation and therefore results because of the culture of excellence that exists.

Pushy? Depends on who you compare me to.

Pusheed Can I ask at what point would you not consider the very academic option for this OP? A 3 hour daily commute seems extreme to me, but you seem in favour of the OP's child doing this.

I know of a parent in a similar position, whose DD gets home after extra-curricular activities and a long train journey at nearly 8pm, then does 2+ hours homework (she is on an academic scholarship) and goes to bed at 11pm (13 years old), and is getting up at 6 each day to start over again.

It sounds hellish to me and not what I would want for my DC.

CecilyP and Riverside thanks for your thoughts - I have spoken today with a parent of a child on a scholarship to the school I want DS to go to - and she is full of praise which makes me feel happy with my decision. My DS is highly motivated (strange for a boy I know!) and as he is in the top 5% at his current school, I can see no reason why he won't do the same at the next school.

Fwiw - the secondary school I am looking at takes children from 2-18. I assume this is why it is non-selective at its 13+intake (most of the children stay there their whole school life) . If my DS's current school had a Senior School attached, he would stay there and (I assume) it would have similar results.

Diablo - that sounds awful. (aNd makes me feel much better).

diabolo - As I said in an earlier post, I wasn't posting in favour of choosing the long commute school. Instead I was questioning why the OP wanted to spend whatever on a private school that wasn't particularly academic.

My son went to a non selective fee paying boarding school at 13. He's already achieved 3 A* at GCSE and is on course to gain a few more. Yes no selective schools do have weaker exam results but there's a bigger picture than academics. My son's school is sporty and great for the child who's yet to work out what they're good at. Only wish was that the school was closer. We felt a 2.5 hour commute each day was too much so my son's a boarder.

Pusheed - we don't all live in areas where there is lots of local choice.

My own DS is at a non selective Prep, and I am perfectly happy with it, there are no selective Preps anywhere in my County.

I get what I want, good academics, great sport for DS, small classes, long school day and activities and he is encouraged 100% of the time to be an individual.

I don't think it's fair to insinuate that people who don't choose academic schools are only interested in mixing with "posh" people. That's generalising as much as the independent-school-bashers do.

diablo - My DCs are at independent (selective) schools so I am not an Indie-basher :)

But I have talked to parents who thought I was 'their kind of people' (I'm not. Both DP and I are WC made good) and so thought it was ok to tell me why they didn't want their kids to go to the local comp.

I accept that not all private school parents are like that. I accept that the OP isn't like that but it was a question that I thought needed asking.

In casa Wordfactory, we're using both.

DD (against my better judgement) chose a relatively mixed school. DS a super selective.

So far DD's experience has been excellent. She is enjoying a braod education. Lot sof focus on music, drama and art. But enough clever girls to make a top set worthy of its name. To work, you need a decent amount of puils at the same ability as you and you need rigorous and flexible setting.

DS experience will be far more cerebral and therewill be little mix academically. The boys will range from clever to genius . Music, drama and art are not hugely important to the school, but neither to my DS.
Sport though is superlative. So DS will fit right in.

I wouldn't pay a penny for a school where music could be described as 'not important'. Not that I pay anyway (actually, when you add up all the music stuff I pay for I pay a blooming fortune but that's by the by).

I dont know which school wordfactory has her DS at bi=ut I suspect that she uses the term "not hugely important to the school" loosely and I doubt it would have the same meaning as in a state school.