DH had decided DD should not go to grammar school - Help!

[supadoula]

Our gorgeous DD passed her 11+ without any tuition and then got into a grammar school 10 minutes away. She is not happy because she will miss some of her friends.
Without my knowledge, DH phoned the headmistress of her previous school (a failing middle school in special measures!) to ask if they would have her back. Of course, they said they would. Now, DD is convinced she is going back to her middle school...
I am going to mediation tomorrow with soon to be ex DH in order to sort this out ASAP. She is registered at the grammar school anyway but I need ammunition so that DH realises that it is his parental duty not to give into his daughter's whims and think about her long term future. Help!!

Mumtryingherbest - but a lot of places will be siblings whose brothers or sisters passed the exam in the preceding years (so likely thise siblings would have passed the academic selection in any case. (I'm one of four girls and we all passed the 11+), and then the 35% selective places are taken up by more wealthy people who live in the wealthy commuter belt. Parmiters admits 10% under the proximity to school criterion then after siblings, medical, academic, musical ability/aptitude, they finally return to the distance list.

It would be interesting to know how many (%) get admitted under the distance rule. It's probably quite easy to find out. I'll look tomorrow.

www.parmiters.herts.sch.uk/admissions/admissions-criteria-explained/

It must have been absolute hell on earth LaQueen because I have worked in inner city schools and never recognise your description of a secondary school classroom. I would have thought that you would have lived and worked somewhere naicer.

Nationally it may not make much of a difference but in the areas with grammar schools it does. The secondary moderns which are the alternative to the grammars are awful places. All the areas surrounding the grammar school areas have great comprehensives, go into the grammar school area and there are some truly awful schools.

My eldest is at a grammar and lesson are not routinely disturbed, however bullying is not dealt with and teaching is dull ( although because of his special needs that suits him) and poor. There was also no support for him in the subjects where he looked unlikely to get an A/A*. His special needs were also not supported. He will get into a top university and I know that his school will cite him in their promotional material and it makes me very annoyed because they have very little to do with his success. So yes I do pity him.

But if you were driving out of your naice area into a warzone to teach, surely these were not the schools that your children would attend.

I don't like grammars because I don't believe in selection at 11. I also want to educate my children in their local community, not bus them across town. That is why I don't choose to send my children to a grammar, not because of my experience of a few schools. That applies to all grammars. I suppose in a similar way you could choose to send your child to a grammar simply because you believe in separating your child from most other children.

In addition to that I don't like the the four grammars that I have experience of. I don't criticise all grammars because the few I have been into are of a poor quality and that is not why I would not choose a grammar regardless of where I lived. You seemed to be saying that your children are not at comprehensives because they are all dens of iniquity, although of course if you are living in a grammar area you won't have comprehensives unless like me you live on the edge or just outside the grammar area.

In fact if I remember rightly your decision to send your children to a grammar is about wanting to keep your children apart from the majority and while I don't agree I at least respect your honesty.

If your local schools are a war zone or a place where kids get beaten up for getting full marks in maths they are unusually poor schools and therefore I understand you wanting an alternative.

I find the reasons for people's educational choices fascinating, but I am a teacher so perhaps not representative.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs There are so few grammars nowadays, in just a small handful of counties...what real impact can they possibly make, really? A lot of people say that but looking at this list suggests there are more than people realise:
www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewforum.php?f=64

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs Oh, and philo I live I'm a naice area I think that somewhat contradicts your claim mum I went one better than just visiting our local non selective schools, before deciding on the grammar...I worked in a few of them, as both a TA and a Cover Supervisor. If you needed a car to get to them as they were several miles away, I really do have to question how local they were to you.

To be honest, if all the non selective schools in your area are performing so much lower than the national average and have such high levels of behavioural issues then I very much doubt you live in a "naice" area. After all lets face it if the Grammar has no catchment I would imagine a number of children attending the school won't even be particularly local so unlikely to have creamed off much of the local "top set" candidates.

Granted most areas will have "the" school that everyone wants to avoid. However, to suggest for one minute that all the non selective schools in your area have high levels of behavioural issues is laughable at best especially if you do live in a "naice" area.

By all means choose what ever school you wish for you DD, that is your prerogative. However, I am surrounded by selective schools (7 out of the 9 local schools to be exact) and I can tell you that pretty much everything you have posted so far falls far short of having any real factual basis to back your claims. I have already demonstrated that an area where schools select only 25% on academic ability can out perform some grammar schools with 100% academic selection. I have named some of those schools - Parmiters, Watford boys & Watford girls. Does you DD grammar really perform significantly better than these schools?

To be clear, I'm not against selective schools, however, I do object to those parents who believe that simply getting their children into those schools will guarantee success (academic ability does not occur through osmosis), makes them better behaved, makes them socially superior and someone a parent should be more proud of. No it doesn't, what it does guarantee is that your daughter will have to work her back side off to keep up with her peers and meet the expectations of the school (nothing wrong with that if that is what you want for your DD). It also means that your DD will be under significant pressure for the remainder of her academic life (again nothing wrong with that if that is what you want for your DD). I've heard many discussions on the pros and cons of a DCs being "a big fish in a small pond" vs being "a small fish in a big pond". The suitability of which comes down to the DC not the school.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs it's possible for other people to form a differing opinion based on very different experiences of grammars. Your daughter has only just started at a grammar so based on that I would say you have very little experience of them or were you a TA there too?

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs It's a fantastic place to be and learn did you actually attend you DDs grammar yourself?

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs Our grammar knocks all our local secondaries into a cocked hat all I can say is that the overall academic ability in your area must be very low if the presence of a super selective grammar is affecting the potential performance of the local secondaries. If it is I would say your area is pretty unique in that respect. If you take QE for example which is a super selective (out of interest does your DDs grammar out perform this one by any chance) they have children attending from as far as 25 miles away.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs but I didn't like the atmospheres or the attitudes. you do realise that children pick up on things like this. I hardly think your presence at these schools was a good influence if this is how you felt whilst working there.

This is what is wrong with this country right here on this thread.

I do think that comprehensives have really upped their game over the past few years and it would be interesting to see how long ago your experience in schools is.

I also live in a rural area so get your point about driving.

If you are going to see bad behaviour in schools it is likely to be in a lesson that is covered, especially if the cover supervisor is new, lacks classroom management skills or is very inflexible. Behaviour in our school is very good, however we did have one cover supervisor who for some reason just managed to wind the students up. Statistically you are also more likely to get off task behaviour in a classroom where students are struggling to read or write. Not always, infact my hardest classes last year were set 4 out fo 5 and set 2 out of five. Those of course are the lessons where a TA would be working.

If your children get a place in a grammar school they are likely to be in top sets where behaviour issues are often less likely to happen - not always I hasten to add. I had a top set Year 11 last year, to be honest I could set them an hours worth of work and leave the room for a brew and a foot massage and they would be working away, in fact they would probably make my brew for me.

I am not doubting your experience of secondary schools Laqueen but I wonder how representative it is of the whole school and whether things have moved on.

As I said I taught in a comprehensive/secondary modern with a very mixed intake that was "only" rated good and yet we rarely see behaviour issues. Our brightest/hardest working are generally admired rather than bullied.

Young people change a lot while they are at secondary school, so while it's obviously pleasing if they settle in well at the start of Year 7 there's a long way to go - and no parent can know what issues will arise!

Certainly my stepson encountered difficulties at his grammar school later - when puberty began to kick in - and it's at that point when the poor level of pastoral care and support, as well as badly flawed communication with parents - began to kick in.

My own daughter is in Year 13 of a selective school now. While she is extremely able I feel that the rather hothouse atmostphere there has made her rather (unncessarily) tense and anxious in some ways. By this stage, both my stepchildren were in sixth form college, and I feel that the more grown-up atmosphere there was a healthier, happier one.

I think it would be sad place if we only cared about decisions that only immediately impacted ourselves.

I am happy with the education that most of my children have had, however I am not happy that a few miles up the road that there are some very poor secondary schools failing the poorest children. I hardly think that makes me some kind of saint, rather a pragmatist who worries about writing of the majority of society, especially when there is really no need.

If you want to educate your children in some kind of bubble that is fine, I do resent paying for it in my taxes though.

Thanks LaQueen, not teaching at the moment but yes I was and it is something I am passionate about hence the career.