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

[AdventuresWithVoles]

Genuine question.

I prefer neither but if you have to have one then the top 5% is better (top2%) even better. That gets the real high flyers - cuts out the ones who are drilled for the exam and stops the horrible practice of drawing a pass/fail line between 2 DCs of similar intelligence. It means that the comprehensives have plenty of very intelligent children and that some don't even bother doing the exam because they take over a much wider distance and many want a local school and don't want to travel.

I would expect each primary school to only have a handful of DCs pass the exam. It works like that in Reading - successfully.

My kids are high flyers but seem happiest in non selective schools.

I would abolish grammar schools given half a chance. Massively divisive and not necessary if comprehensive schools are well run.

"But grammar schools are part of the system, private schools are not." Not really. grammar schools are part of the state system, private schools are not but both are part of 'the system', rightly or wrongly.

HE isn't the only alternative - seeker could embrace the 'perfectly fine' secondary modern at which she expects her dc will achieve well at with good home support and which clearly does have at least a few of the 23% attending. It's the fact she's decided the presence of a grammar means she cannot use this school while at the same time criticising others for not using their local state schools that they consider to be less than ideal for their own dc (for whatever reason) that grates. All systems have their faults, but she only recognises the faults with grammar and private systems.

That said, I am fed up with how these threads always end up this way.

When they are super selective many very academic DCs go to the comprehensive instead.
I don't know why this thread keeps going on about seeker. As I understand it her DS is going to the secondary modern - they have just rebranded them as 'high schools'- someone obviously decided that secondary modern have negative connotations.

@talkin you have no experience of super selectives. Please do not make things up to fill this knowledge gap. There is a great sense of community at DD1's school.

Can we please stop with this @ thing? Mumsnet is not Twitter.

Super selectives are no different to other schools in sense of community. Lots of DCs don't go to their local school even when it isn't selective.

@Mintyy There's no rule against it and in a fast flowing discussion like this it helps to make it clear to whom one is replying. So, basically, no. Unless the person who is in charge makes a rule that we can't.

I have no idea what it is supposed to mean!

Metabilis, if you started your message with Mintyy, that would be one less character for you to have to type out on this fast flowing forum.

There's no rule against it but it makes you look like an arse, btw.

It makes me glad that I don't bother with Twitter.

What a very rude and nasty person. So, I'm done with this thread.

@mintty, I agree that #mumsnetisnottwitter and therefore all this @seeker and @pooshtun stuff #MakesULookLikeanArse

hmm can you tell I don't do twitter!

#abadtemperedthread

@scummymummy #talkingtomyself

Actually @scummymummy #talkingtomyself is quite good. I might put myself in for the 11 plus.

you're a natural scummy

@jimjams Thanks mon ami!

@mintyy I think my #mumsnetisnottwitter post made me look like I was calling you an arse but I was actually trying to agree with you lightheartedly. I hope it didn't come across wrong.

@scummy: no, no, I quite #understand.

And even if you did call me an arse I wouldn't throw my @teddies out of the #pram about it.

@mintyy, oh good! #relieved

There's an awful lot of blithe mentioning of the "top 2%." Top 2% in what? What is it that this "top 2%" are aiming for? Should they also be screened for nervous tics, mental instability, poor health, inadequate prowess on the sports field, poor social skills, poor self-care skills, lack of practical skills or general clumsiness? Or how about speech impediments and general ugliness? After all, if we want an elite, why stick with an ability at non-verbal reasoning?...

top 2% in terms of IQ-quite simple.