secondary school question please

Lunar_Eclipse

moneypooh wrote: »

if you can get a school where your children are treated as individuals then they'll grow and achieve their full potential where ever it is.

I would challenge anyone to disagree with this statement, which makes me wonder why it is so incredibly rare?

I find these threads really hard since although I know my children are receiving a 'good education' (especially when one takes a National and then Global view), I'm also very saddened by the state of the education system generally and often wish my children had no part in it.:o

If we could have received funding equivalent to what the Govt pays my local schools to educate my children, I would have home educated. But at the time, money was very tight (mortgage taking c.60%) and would not stretch to basic home ed supplies. And of course 'basic' would never had been the plan!

I have friends who are looking at secondary schools. Many parents locally consider private schools from 11, but they have downsides too and vary in focus/culture/results enormously. If money was no object I have a good idea of where I'd like my girls to go in terms of the school's ethos, yet it is over £7k/term for day pupils (which then negatively implies elitism to me!)

It's so hard that the (next) local school sounds better and better to me.

LillyJ

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said. This sums up my experience of state schooling so far, yet at a primary level (albeit in the country's leading state junior school and an Ofsted outstanding Beacon infant school). The lowest common denominator rules; and sadly it's very low indeed, even in a highly professional middle class blah blah area. It's all to do with Govt targets and funding. But I honestly think my children deserve better than the Maths/Literacy factories they are at.

There is so much to say for homeschooling.:D

But actually, I don't think that happens at state comprehensives (in my experience) as it is recognised that there are different abilities. But it DOES happen at grammar school as it is assumed everyone is bright.

Lunar_Eclipse

LillyJ wrote: »

But actually, I don't think that happens at state comprehensives (in my experience) as it is recognised that there are different abilities. But it DOES happen at grammar school as it is assumed everyone is bright.

But they are bright comparatively. The range of abilities at a Grammar school will be narrower on the whole, which is easier for teaching and learning.

Imagine the ability spectrum at a local comprehensive where there is no Grammar option. They cover the brighest (G&T) to the least able who usually leave school with no qualifications. There are 9 different streams for Maths & English at our local school, covering what would equate to several years in ability spread.

We live in an area that is not very diverse in terms of the school intake (although I suppose the same could be said for most areas). Most parents are degree educated professionals. Yet given this tiny spectrum, there are still 5 different streams for Maths & Literacy from Reception. They are doing completely different work following the Collins Maths system by Year 3. It's just not possible for the teachers to get it right for all students.

milliebear00001

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

But they are bright comparatively. The range of abilities at a Grammar school will be narrower on the whole, which is easier for teaching and learning.

Imagine the ability spectrum at a local comprehensive where there is no Grammar option. They cover the brighest (G&T) to the least able who usually leave school with no qualifications. There are 9 different streams for Maths & English at our local school, covering what would equate to several years in ability spread.

We live in an area that is not very diverse in terms of the school intake (although I suppose the same could be said for most areas). Most parents are degree educated professionals. Yet given this tiny spectrum, there are still 5 different streams for Maths & Literacy from Reception. They are doing completely different work following the Collins Maths system by Year 3. It's just not possible for the teachers to get it right for all students.

Just a small point, but describing pupils as 'bright' or 'not bright' is a bit misleading. Pupils TEND to do well academically if they have supportive parents with the money and time to invest in their children's education. Similarly, whether or not parents had a positive experience of education themselves has a massive impact on the importance they place on their children's education, and again affects how their children perform in school. To say that 'bright children' will do well in grammars is not the whole story because academic success is rarely about IQ (which is itself a very dodgy measure with a wealth of criticism from developmental psychologists). There are plenty of children who will not succeed academically simply because of the socio-economic position they start from. There will also be plenty of kids who are, frankly, average, who will do well because of their background.

Passing or failing the 11+ says very little about the 'brightness' of a child, nor anything much about what their academic potential might be if they were given a level playing field. It is interesting to note that areas that still have the 11+ often have grammars with high academic results, and comps with the most appalling results (far worse than comparable comp schools in areas without the 11+ system).

What I'm trying to say, is that children's academic ability rests upon many things, some of which comps are constantly having to fight against. The old grammar school/secondary modern divide systematically failed to provide a choice for millions of children at the age of 11, and I would be concerned for children whose parents coach them through the 11+ now only to have them possibly fail it and see 'going to comp' as somehow second best - what a message to send a child of 11!

Lunar_Eclipse

milliebear00001 wrote: »

What I'm trying to say, is that children's academic ability rests upon many things

I agree completely with this. But also believe that not all children are bright (academically speaking - remember the bell curve!) but most would have strengths in other areas. I also think it's okay to say this. Really! We are all different. School is not the be all and end all and certainly does not 'define' a whole person.

Caveats: Children/people develop at different rates and at different times, teaching methods vary and children learn differently, IQ tests may assess a narrow range of intellectual ability (I don't know enough to form an opinion), most parents think their children are bright (when most of them are 'average')

Oldernotwiser

milliebear00001 wrote: »

The old grammar school/secondary modern divide systematically failed to provide a choice for millions of children at the age of 11,

And what choice do people have these days when they have to go to the local comp, unless their parents are wealthy enough to be able to buy a house in a better area.

You really are churning out the party line on this issue, aren't you?

Lunar_Eclipse

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Passing or failing the 11+ says very little about the 'brightness' of a child, nor anything much about what their academic potential might be if they were given a level playing field.

'going to comp' as somehow second best - what a message to send a child of 11!

I'm not sure passing or failing the 11 plus "says very little". Both my parents took the 11 plus. My Mum passed, Dad failed. Mum was the more able academically and sailed through Grammar school. Dad did almost as well at the Comp. He is now a Financial Director on the board of two European companies. He has done the best career wise by a long way, mainly because of his determination and astute business head, not because his 11 plus assessment was incorrect! So taking test phobia aside, that statement about the test outcome not really showing how 'bright' a child is is what I would expect a parent of an average child to say who simply fails to accept that their child didn't cut the grade comparatively. It is *only* a test for ACADEMIC brightness, it does not test for life success.


Oh and I think the message sent to the child is the one that the parents believe or tell them. By the very nature of the system, the Comp option is second best in terms of academic elitism. But that's not to say it offers a second rate education or is not the best choice for specific children.

I really could wax lyrical about education ......

milliebear00001

The 11+ says nothing about the pure academic ability of children. It says plenty about what support the child has from their parents, peer group etc. Plenty of children have (and do) fail the 11+ who could do very well academically. My dad failed and went on to qualify as an accountant (doing a degree and then sitting some extremely demanding mathematically based exams). He had to spend years of his life getting back the time he spent at a secondary modern being prevented from sitting exams. I realise that today's children are still offered the opportunity to sit exams at comps, but the fact remains that grammars are still overwhelmingly full of middle class, supported children; while their equivalent comps are full of working class ones. It certainly isn't because most working class children are 'less bright'! The 11+ is an IQ test. Modern psychology research suggests IQ is not fixed.

milliebear00001

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And what choice do people have these days when they have to go to the local comp, unless their parents are wealthy enough to be able to buy a house in a better area.

You really are churning out the party line on this issue, aren't you?

I could say the same...

jay11_2

I think it's terrible that we feel compelled to discuss 'good schools / bad schools', what a reflection on our much messed about, once excellent , education system (I'm aware that it still is excellent in some cases, just think that's not good enough). I'm no expert but it seems that children in deprived/disadvantaged areas and backgrounds frequently lose out on so many levels. These children probably need a fantastic, supportive, education, more than any other child, to give them the chance to do well, regardless of any abuse or lack of parental support. It seems to me that many will never get that chance and will be knocked or held back in every area of their lives.

I am not talking about the well supported and loved child from a 'poor' family--my children would come under that category, as would I, lol. But about truly unsupported and disadvantaged children, who seem to be held back at every turn. It's a crying shame in a wealthy society.