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

[AdventuresWithVoles]

Genuine question.

A good education is a basic right. Playing the cello isn't.

I can understand seeker's rationale perfectly. She doesn't approve of the grammar school system. She is in an area where that system pertains. To get the best for her children (which is every parent's duty) she has to play by the rules that apply where she lives. Doesn't mean the system doesn't stink and that she wouldn't be happier in area with no grammar schools.

I've seen threads on here where parents are slated for putting their principles first and sending their kids to the local comp when they could afford private, or could afford to move to a catchment area of a 'good' school. Herod had nothing on them IIRC

DD got offered scholarships and passed her 11+, but I sent her to a state secondary and she is doing REALLY well. I was concerned I might have made the wrong choice, but she is loving where she is, has loads of friends, has been put into appropriate sets for all her subjects and the school is really responsive to anything I ask.

I sometimes wonder whether she would have done better in a selective school, but I am happy with my choice.

@seeker you can't have a top set consisting of 2 kids. That was evident in DD1's primary, where she was bullied (and where DD2 is now being subject to attempted bullying too although to be honest I fear for the bullies rather than her since she is FIERCE). You can't accelerate 2 kids in a year group to do their exams a year early, to do more exams, to do different exams. And yes, it would be just 2 kids from the grammar at the comp where DD1 would be if she wasn't at the grammar. The other 2 who, if the GS was to disperse its inhabitants back whence they came, would be at that comp ceteris paribus would in fact go posh. Because all things aren't equal and their families can afford it. Even if every child in DD1's year group who comes from the city ended up in the same comp (which wouldn't happen due to the catchment thing and the faith thing) there would still be at most 8 of them. and that isn't a viable top set.

Access to decent arts ed absolutely is a basic right. It's one many people are denied but that's another issue. But I wasn't asking how you felt about access to arts ed I was asking how you felt about segregating young people based on excellence in the arts and you were fine with it. You said so.

But, metabilis- isn't your grammar a super selective taking only about 5%? that is very different from our 23%.

seeker As I said in my last post: 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?

Please can you explain the thinking behind these double standards, rather than just ignoring posts you don't like?

And don't come over with the same old "rich v poor" "choice v no choice" nonsense. You have made a choice to engage with a system you don't like, you could have chosen differently.

Incidentally, I don't think anyone but you has mentioned Home Ed (although I wonder if that is what you will end up doing for your DS?)

How do you not engage with that system?

@seeker but you want to abolish all grammar schools. Not just the Kent ones which we all agree sound appalling from every angle. I haven't seen anyone in any of the threads I have seen you in ever defending the Kent system.

I support super selective Grammar Schools. Are you now saying you would keep them?

Diabolo- I didn't think I had ignored a post -forgive me. I mentioned HE because my choices are either to engage with the selective system, go private, move or HE. You have said that I am hypocritical for engaging with the selective system, moving and private are both out of the question, so that only leaves HE!

To be fair, there's nothing wrong with HE. It's not for me, but I have friends with wildly varying educational profiles themselves who do it, for a variety of reasons, and I think they are without exception doing a great job by their kids.

But grammar schools are part of the system, private schools are not. To pretend you were forced to use them and it's a choice anyone could make is irritating.

I think excluding children on the basis of how poor they are is rather more unpalatable than on how bright they seem - though both are pretty crude.

Gah! Had to unhide it, couldn't resist

I am not grammar school educated but even my fairly average brain has NO problem whatsoever with understanding Seeker's position.

I happen to share it but the difference between us is that I live in an area with comprehensive schools.

I just don't see how she is a hypocrite at all!

Can't speak for Kent, but in other areas which use a universal 11+ system (eg no comps only Grammar and secondaries) parents are not given a choice to enter or not, all children at state primaries sit the exam.

Where I used to live, parents were not even told the date of the exam, so you couldn't even miss it by throwing a sicky!

I don't think there's anywhere like that anymore, cream tea!

seeker it wouldn't surprise me if you had been planning to HE your DS ever since his 11+. The point is, I am supportive of your choice to do what you think is best for your DS, without judging you.

If you could try and refrain from telling the rest of us that we are corrupt, divisive, elitist snobs for doing the same for our DC's, this might not turn into such a bitch-fest.

Off to my RL now.

I understand seekers view point perfectly. I agree with part of it, but not all - that's the area where we can have sensible discussions, as seeker has consistently advocated.

"If you could try and refrain from telling the rest of us that we are corrupt, divisive, elitist snobs for doing the same for our DC's, this might not turn into such a bitch-fest."

If the cap fits.... ( that was a joke by the way)

There is a huge difference between engaging with the state system n the same way that everyone in the area does, and opting out completely into a system available only to a rich minority.,

So what's your judgement on a parent with a very bright child who gets a 100% bursary to a private school Seeker? Should they take it, or send their child to the failing state school they would otherwise be allocated on the grounds that to send their child to a private school would be using a system that is only available to a 'rich minority'?

Genuine question.

I understand seeker's view point - I agree with it. I don't think it hypocritical. She is living in an 11+ area so the only way not to be involved is to pay for private education or HE.
I moved out of an 11+ area , had I not been able to I was already looking into alternatives for failure. I would have sent DS to the grammar school, but I wasn't going to send him to the secondary modern with no chance to move upwards. He was an academic DC, but I had no faith in him passing- having seen that many very bright DCs fail.

The bursary is completely different. I have nothing against the 11+ where it is only the top 2% - then you know that you have the real high flyers.

The fact that they have 100% bursary shows that it isn't just open to a rich minority. My DH got one and his parents couldn't afford private education. He also didn't have tutoring for it.

I understand Seeker's viewpoint too Exoticfruits. I just wish she would extend other's the same courtesy.

There are two entirely different educational models. Superselectives, which leave the hinterland relatively untouched and the full grammar system, as in Kent. One model caters for perhaps the top 5%, the other for the top quartile.

Which makes the most sense? Or do either?

superselectives have a horrendous carbon footprint and because by definition a wide geographic spread, lack the sense of community in a 'normal state school'

the two of the three counties that run the tri partite system have DIRE results for the kids not at the grammars
the other is surrounded by non grammar counties so the effect is diluted