Windsurf4 wrote:
Ok, I'm not willing to not help my kids.
Your choice, I wasn't either re: the 11+, although I supported them generally, my choice.
Windsurf4 wrote:
To learn and get the best education they can.
Yes
Windsurf4 wrote:
So shy aren't schools willing to teach our children well enough to pass the 11+.
Because schools are
educating them, not teaching a small number of them the arguably odd skills required to pass an arguably spurious test.
Windsurf4 wrote:
My kids were late for school a few times in a month. I now get texts from the school at 7:30 in the morning to make sure they are ready in time.
Fair enough IMO, schools are measured on this, although I accept that perhaps they shouldn't be, low 'performance' here leads to a poor ofsted report which leads to parents slagging off the school. Oh the irony.
Windsurf4 wrote:
But the school won't teach them to get into the best school possible.
The school's job is to educate the children, the best they can, within the framework they are given, not to pass a test for a school which will be totally unsuitable for most of them. It is also a misnomer to describe a grammar school as the 'best possible'. Particularly in 'non grammar' area such as Dorset, grammar schools are a reflection of their intake and nothing more. All the evidence suggests (trawl the relevant threads if you want the facts on this) that bright children do just as well in good schools, incidentally where attendance is high.
Windsurf4 wrote:
Sorry but that's [Edited by moderator]!
Oh OK then. I thought you were uninformed?