On 2008-07-25 22:23:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:488a2eef@qaanaaq...
On 2008-07-25 19:42:57 +0100, stuart noble said:


They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money.

Actually there were numerous children whose parents were not well off
and who received part or full bursaries at the school attended by my
children. Secondly, there were parents who impoverished themselves
in various ways because they put the welfare of their children and
payment of fees as a higher priority than spending money on themselves
or their house. I think that it's spectacularly wicked that they
should have to do this out of taxed income in addition to paying for a
state system that has failed their children.

What's wrong with all kids going to their local primary school?

I explained that earlier in the thread. Our local one was grouping 5
and 6 year olds together

so what?

So it's not appropriate or acceptable to do this.


even in a school that "doesn't" do that there can be a years difference
in the age

Yes but not two and not an exectation that some children will be
compromising their own potential in order to accommodate a wrongly
conceived experiment that was not working.




and expecting the 6 year olds who had completed set work to help out
with the 5 year olds and those who hadn't.

they learn from that.

Oh sure they will. Predominantly that the education system is not
meeting their needs, or for that matter those who are on the receiving
end of a 7 year old "teacher".



For my daughter, who at the time had a reading age of 8+, a maturity to
match and should have been in the year ahead, this was intensely
frustrating. Children aren't stupid.

No, parents are though.

For tolerating this, yes I agree.


One afternoon she came home and announced that she felt that she was
being used (her exact words). We tackled the school about the
year combining issue and they came out with some BS about it being
local policy. I checked. It wasn't. We then attempted to get
her moved to the year above.

She is a child, let her be a child!

.... and continue to see her coming home daily frustrated that she
hadn't achieved anything and was being forced to use books and
materials that she had picked up for herself at home a year earlier?
I couldn't be that cruel. The school had no compunction about that.



That was also declined because of "local policy". Again it wasn't.
Given the state of affairs, an unwillingness to correct it and being
lied to, the decision in terms of the principle to move them to an
independent school became rather easy. The financial aspect was
rather more difficult at the time and a lot was sacrificed. When it
became my son's turn, there wasn't really a second thought about the
principle but the financial aspect was even harder and lasted for many
years. I don't begrudge a penny or a second of it.

Most people here think you are a bit strange, this just adds to the evidence.




Really? So what would you have done? Sat back, done nothing and
accepted the lying?


If providing a proper education for my children because the state has
demonstrated itself to be incompetent at doing so, then I am happy to
be thought of as strange. Far better that than to be considered to
be part of a muddled thinking crowd for the sake of expediency. This
is something that I have never done and never will do. It's not the
easy way, for a multitude of reasons, but it works well. I really
don't care what other people think about that - they can make their own
decisions to the degree to whcih they are capable of independent
thought.