Is everybody happy with their choice of a NON-selective secondary education over a selective one?

[AdventuresWithVoles]

Genuine question.

Doesn't look like what she said to me, I have to say.

You've been using google translate set to 'words into words I wish had been said' again, I think.

Anyway, as others have said, it is boring. I may have done things differently from seeker, I may not, I don't know, but I see nothing inconsistent in her view of grammar schools which has not changed at all that I can see. So could we not please just stop banging on about it or pretending it is something it is not.

dictionary.reference.com

hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs

So?

Blu if one only argues inthe theoretical, then that's fine. There are many many posters here who I disagree with but who seem to me to come from a place of complete integrity.

But if one says one thing on one thread, then another on another (nothing to do with huntin through years of posts, just obvious stuff) then one should expect to be pulled up.

TNit pulled me up recently on a phrase I use regularly and she'd seen on other threads. She was right to do that, if it made me look hypocritical or whatever.

We have to be consistent, I feel.

"I see nothing inconsistent in her view of grammar schools which has not changed at all that I can see."

The phrase about walking the walk and not simply just talking the talk springs to mind.

People who are trying to get their kids into a grammar school shouldn't lecture others on how divisive the model is.

AFAIK Seeker was against grammar schools when her daughter went to one, and is still against them now. I don't see this as inconsistent. I'm against CofE schools, and academies, but that's what our nearest comprehensive is, so what am I going to do? I have a certain amount of respect for the idea that some people just wouldn't allow their child to take the 11+ in that position, but it is certainly on record that Seeker was never in favour of grammar schools, but pragmatically given that comprehensives were not an option (ie don't exist) that was the hand the system dealt her.

However this is, as I said, tedious and silly. If anyone wants to talk about education, I'm there - but without wishing to sound disrespectful to the poor boy, who I'm sure would be mystified by the amount of women out there who want to discuss his education and prospects, I don't want to talk about Seeker's son any more and I'm tired of the derailing by other posters onto this subject.

It's tiresome, reductive, and in a few cases just plain nasty.

Some people are stuck with the grammar school system and so however much they disagree with it they have no choice. Luckily we don't work in Kent and were able to move to a comprehensive area.
Most people don't have an opportunity for comprehensives at all.

I have identical twin sons with similar academic aptitude. They sat exams at 10 for three selective independent schools. Their scores for schools 1 and 2 were very close indeed. For school 3 there was a massive disparity between their maths scores, resulting in the "success" of one and the "failure" of the other. It seems that, had the boys sat only the third exam, random strangers would have felt able to conclude that DT1 was the academic one, while DT2 had "other talents".

This shows the silliness of the system. I have a friend who is the twin that went to grammar school-her sister didn't and yet there was no difference academically.

TOSN - If I said that I was against upper income whites only country clubs and then revealed that I had applied to join one then people would be quite justified in queueing up to call me a hypocrite.

But, apparently being against grammar schools for being socially decisive and unfair to those who don't get accepted and then trying to get one's son into a GS is exempt from the Hypocrisy Rule.

Anyway, as you have said, it is getting boring. I don't want to be near the crime scene when Mama MNHQ turns up to tell off the children for bickering. So adios.

But you don't have to join a country club at all, do you? Bad analogy.

Adios to you though!

@PooshTun

I don't want to be near the crime scene when Mama MNHQ turns up to tell off the children for bickering. So adios.

Too late. I'll just post a link to our talk guideliness Good night and good luck.

1. I live in an area where there are only grammar schools and high schools.no comprehensives.

1. For reasons I am notnprepared to go into ( because they involve other people) I am not able to move,

1. I have always and consistently said that the system is unfair and divisive, and I have actively campaigned locally for it to change.I have done this before my dd went to grammar school, after she did, during the run up to my ds taking the 11+ and I will continue so to do.

1. I have two children. They are both children who would naturally be in the "top set" of a comprehensive school. One is at grammar school. The other will be going to the high school in September, having not passed the 11+, despite being assessed in the to 10% academically and predicted 5 5 6 in his year 6 SATS. Academically, he is better suited to the grammar school, and I appealed to get him a plce. The appeal was unsuccessful, as I was almost sure it would be so he will be going to the high school. Which I have always said is a perfectly fine school- although its results would alarm most mumsnetters. It is not the ideal school for my ds, but he will do well because he is bright and well supported. I have no choice but to use the system. That being so, I see no hypocrisy in wanting my children to be in the bit of the system best suited to them academically. If they were at a comprehensive school, I would be pushing for them to be in the top sets. I have never hidden any of these facts.

1. I have always talked about the damage to the cohort and the community of selection at 10. I am not talking about people dancing around those that don't pass and taunting them. I am talking about an underlying sense that those tha "pass" have done better. How can this not be psychologically bad for a cohort of 10 year olds to be divided in this arbitrary way?

1. There is a useful and interesting debate to be had here. I find it extraordinary that for some reason my point of view is to some invalid because I am actually using the system. I have never been inconcsistent. I have always been open. And I have NEVER been the first to personalise the debate- unless talking about what it's like to live in an 11+ town is like is personalising the debate. It seems to me to be important- because those that have q rosy tinted view othe the days when everyone sat the [11+ and there was a grammar school in every town need to think carefully about what this means.

I think most of us who have had run-ins with you in the past know most of the above seeker

The hypocrisy arises from your sentence That being so, I see no hypocrisy in wanting my children to be in the bit of the system best suited to them academically in Point 4 above.

Why then, do you have such a problem with other MNers wanting what is best suited to their DC's academically, be it an independent education or tutoring?

Why is it OK for you to want what is best for your DC's, but not for other people to want the same?

I really don't understand where you are coming from.

@seeker Presumably then you are against competitive and representational sport of all kinds, and also against music exams and such things as county and national youth ensembles etc. ?

You have talked a lot about goats, which I objected to. You also talked about seeing groups of young people in Tescos but I didn't understand what you were on about then so maybe it was completely innocuous or maybe it was some reference to a Kentish gang culture of which I was not previously aware.

I am amazed - although, I suppose, also admiring, that you can be so incredibly confident that your DS will be 'well supported'. I worry constantly about being a rubbish mother and doing the right thing for my DCs. It must be wonderful to be so incredibly self confident. Although perhaps thus why you are so keen to describe other people's DCs as goats. I support grammar schools completely, but I have never and will never describe anybody's child so cruelly.

@seeker - incidentally my DS - the one at comp, the one with hearing difficulties dyslexia and AS - has been assessed as in the top 5% academically. That did not mean that the GS was the right school for him - it most definitely is not.

for anyone who read about his whooping cough - his first day back at school apparently passed without incident (I say apparently because I am away for work so I can only go on a phone call, several emails and some instagram pictures all of which seem very cheerful).

I am opposed to private education because I think it is actively damaging to society as a whole. And private education is only available to a tiny rich minority. What I am dealing with is the only state provision available in my area.

I don't think I have ever expressed an opinion about tutoring - it's not one of my hobby horses. However, I do think it's unfair that if tutoring increases a child's chance of getting into a desirable school, that that tutoring is only available to the already privileged.

"@seeker Presumably then you are against competitive and representational sport of all kinds, and also against music exams and such things as county and national youth ensembles etc. ?"

Nope. . In favour of all of that.

You may have missed- I did apologise for using the "sheep and goats" analogy and said I wouldn't use it again. I didn't mean it to be offensive- it was just a shorthand to describe a group being split in two.

I worry about being AA rubbish mother too- but I do feel confident about being able to support my child at school - I am slightly at a loss to think that this an unusual thing to say in a forum like this. All our children are well supported- the very fact that we are passionate about education means that we are half way there already!

Metqbilis- am I right that you live in an area where the grammar school only takes the very top 5% or so, so the remaining school is virtually o comprehensive? In my situation it's the top 23% at grammar- a bit different.

I think Diabolo is right, and I think her post explains why Seeker tends to get a rough ride on these threads.

Seeker has always been consistent in her opposition to Grammar schools, but as she herself says, that's the system she's in, she's stuck with it and just has to do the best she can for her children. So far, so understandable.

Where I think she gets people's backs up is in her unwillingness to accept that other people may face similarly unpalatable situations and may find
themselves tutoring/sending their children to private schools when this is absolutely not what they would do in an ideal world.

The vast majority of people on these threads are just trying to do the best they can for their children in whatever circumstances they find themselves in. Perhaps if we all started from a basic belief in that, these discussions would get less personal and heated.

Yep, heard all that before seeker.

Let me put it this way. You are really opposed to Grammar Schools, but are prepared to use them to get the best academic education for your DC. (You must agree with that, or you would surely opt for your DC's not to take the 11+).

You are also really opposed to independent education, but that means everyone who uses it is "damaging society as a whole".

I'm sorry, I just see hypocrisy. You are prepared to use a system you loathe to get what is best for your family, but other people who use systems you loathe are somehow damaging society?

I am still very confused by your rationalisation of this.

Diabolo me too

Are you suggesting that I should have home educated? I explained that I could not move.

"If they were at a comprehensive school, I would be pushing for them to be in the top sets."

So you are in favour of selection on ability? And "pushing" to allow children to join the highest-ability group possible? Isn't this what you also consider that grammar schools, and some of the parents, do - but you're against that?

@seeker so basically, you support every type of segregation by and celebration of achievement (including those open really only to those either with a bob or ten, or living in the home counties or within chucking distance of Manchester, Edinburgh or Cardiff) even those that include regular humiliation of those who can't do them, except for those relating to academic achievement. I find that not only hypocritical but laughably inconsistent.

I am in favour of children being streamed/ set appropriately, yes. What I am not in favour of is this being done in such a way that the top set is in one school and the lower sets in another, with no chance of movement either way.