I used my parents house address to get my daughters into what was one of the better schools in our area. They may not have got in using my address. This was fifteen and eight years ago. The thought that they may have gone to the nearest school filled us with dread - it really was a bad school(still is). Until all state schools are of similar quality who can blame any parent for doing all they can to get their children the best start in life they can. I really feel for parents who are deciding on where to send their kids to school today with the media making them out to be criminals for trying to do the best for their kids. Surely it is the fault of goverment and local councils that all schools are not up to the standard they should be.

It still eludes me why the government wants to get rid of these. I went to one. It meant that I could actually focus, work hard, and get good marks. Not stabbed.

What's wrong with having schools for cleverer people to avoid the populace from all being sucked into the chasm of illiteracy that children seem to be heading towards (and yes, I am generalising - but literacy rates have definitely gone down of late).

Keep the grammars!

endless stories of the lengths people will go to up their points and chances:
Parents divorcing (more points)
Bribing of doctors to diagnose children with various point increasing illnesses
Having a third child (more points)
Bar owner round the corner from my children’s’ school was fined big money when it was discovered that every year around application time he had twenty more employees than at any other time of year (work close, more points).

Me, I boarded from 8 to 18. No child of mine, etc. etc. Even if I could afford it.

The general trend over the last 20 years is towards a gradual dismantling of state run institutions by stealth - the state comprehensive system being just one amongst many (have there been any news stories about the Post Office of late, I wonder?).

Hence the ruination of the state system (just like the NHS) by a toxic combination of micro-management and starvation of resources. The ultimate aim being to prepare the ground gradually for public acceptance of an ever-growing level of "involvement" by private sector "partners".

... Or I could be wrong, and our politicians are concerned about providing decent education for all, regardless of ability to pay. They just haven't quite tweaked the magic formula enough yet.

PS. I speak as a state comprehensive survivor. We have our own Facebook Group: "I went to [name witheld] School and I'm not in prison".

My dauhghter went to her local village school from the age of 5. Small class sizes, lovely caring environment, Christian values and ..... crap teaching.During her third year at school we were concerned with her slow progress in maths and worried that she felt intimidated by it. We broached the subject with her teacher who suggested we were worrying unduly, that it was not uncommon and that it would eventually all click into place. We waited another year and things didnt improve. We paid for private tuition with a brilliant teacher who specialises in getting pupils through Grammar School entrance exams. Within about 3 months her confidence levels soared and she rapidly went from bottom of her year 5 class to near the top. The teachers think it was them that got her there - reality is they had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Alarmingly the Maths education she needed to even be considered for Grammar school wasnt even being taight at the school. 6 months tuition got her close to being good enough to pass the entrance exam which she took last month. We have an agonising wait until March for the results. My advice for anyone out there with children 5-8 years old in state schools is dont be fobbed off. The teachers in state primary schools are little more than glorified child minders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/schools-admissions-s...

My manifesto - strongly influenced by the French approach, sadly, is:

1. No private schools, or very limited. Financial disincentives to put people off.
2. All children go to their nearest school, who have to take them. No argument.
3. Schools in bad areas get more resources to help them address special needs. Post code lottery disappears over time.
3. Move house, you go to the local school of new address. No cluttering up the local school with legacy siblings meaning local kids can't get in.
4. Grammar schools back. Schools currently select on pretty much everything other then pupils being clever, which is pretty dumb really.

I survived. And have done OK as well. As did plenty of my mates from similar upper working-class backgrounds. My close friends from school have now become, amongst other things, a very senior naval officer, the H.R. director for one of the Big Three City law firms, an equity partner of a top City shipping law firm and two very successful City traders (who should have retired by now if they're that successful..) All career paths usually associated with a solid private education.

If you have a look at my mate Justin and his mates from a similar school in Liverpool, they make my mates look like underachievers.

You could have a comprehensive education and still be succesful. Could you still do it today?

None of us are taking the chance. We're all paying to have our kids educated privately. Apart from Navy Dave who's too tight and also lives about a minute away from one of the best state schools in Hampshire.

So we are just starting to ponder seriously on the whole debate, but have been talking it for the last couple of years.

The local state school WAS poor a few years ago, BUT as I live in Bromley borough and we have some of the best state schools in the country, we have recently had conflicting reports. A friend's daughter went to the open evening at the 'desirable' school and upon being asked the question "what do you do, if you think a pupil isn't coping?" was met with the response "We would expect you to pay for private tuition..." - um, isn't you know, teaching the kids, *your* job???

Conversely, we also know a few rozzers and the chief inspector of Bromley sends his kids to the local comp (which has now come up a long way and offers a really strong grounding and vocation-led curriculum) because his officers are called out - for knives and such like - more to the so-called 'posher' schools. And finally, if the comp has un-desirables, aren't you just overly cosetting your kids? They will have to mix with all sorts throughout the rest of their life, so shouldn't you prepare them from the earliest possible age.

I'm a big believer that if you have potential, home background helps propel you to learn, so overall I think the comp is going to get our vote...I certainly would never lie to get my child into a school, I think if you're that desperate you should look at your own parenting.

PS: and this is JUST one more reason why this site is ace...

we are currently making an utter horlicks of dismantling the process of selection at age 11.
Unfortunately they sort of forgot to put another system in place, which has meant all the grammars going it alone with their own tests.
As the primary schools are not supposed to be "teaching for the tests" this has resulted in parents getting in the tutors in increasing numbers. My niece has been undergoing a rigorous tutoring regime since the Spring, she is fortunate/unfortunate that her parents can afford it, but it means the goals of increased equality have been missed by a wide margin.
Anybody with a practical solution feel free to contact Ms C Ruane at Stormont.

would, of course, be the removal of that odious social engineer from her office and all of similar stripe north and south...but I'm delighted that grammar schools are still extant in 'The Teddy Bear's Head'. Forgive the thread hijacking.

... buy you the right to a better education. To me, private education is a pernicious, polarising force in society that produces a minority of self-confident over-achievers at the expense of a lifelong grudge in the majority.

Today's parental concerns about schools stem largely, I think, from the Thatcher government's obsession with choice, and the introduction of school league tables. This was an incredibly destructive and divisive measure that undermined confidence in both teachers and parents.

In my opinion, the comprehensive system was a genius move that has never been given the chance to really flourish. Comprehensive schools are the only ones that can truly reflect the diversity of society. In an ideal world, a comprehensive school could accommodate all talents and abilities, academic and otherwise, and also nurture the development of those with special needs. If we all grew up in such a school, wouldn't that be the 'best' education?

You don't really have choice but the impression of choice. You apply for schools and there is some kind of points system that gets applied. That's not choice. People should go to the local school and everyone should have a responsibility to make the school the best it can be.

My memory from school (a comp) was that the kids that did well had supportive and encouraging parents. I would say that that is at least as important as getting your child to a school that gets a 75% pass mark at GCSE's than one that got 73%.

But I also think everyone should have the right to a private education if they wish to pay for one.

with Kits comments about excellent Catholic Schools. The Catholic Schools in Birmingham are generally the better achievers but I am not Catholic and dont intend to change my religion to obtain a decent education for my daughter. I also concur with Martin that a decent education should not be dependent upon your personal wealth. However if my local school is not teaching maths of a standard that would achieve entrance to a Grammar school then surely the school in question is making an unfair judgement of its pupils before putting them to the test. I find this outrageous on the one hand and incomprehensible in a system where schools are largely evaluated on their SAT performances. The general rule of thumb is that class size apparently determines the quality of teaching you will receive.If this is the accepted tenet, and it is in the minds of the population at large, then it is wrong. My daughters class size has fluctuated between 14 and 19 throughout her 5 years at school. Pastoral care has been great. Educational prowess from the teachers has not been satisfactory. I can teach pastoral care at home, I expect better from the teachers employed to put our kids on a successful educational path.When you see reports from teachers with frequent spelling mistakes it really makes you wonder. When you get support staff who are untrained mums earning some pocket money you know the system is failing because of insufficient investment. Scrap Trident and needless waste in government and put it into worthwhile schemes to ensure future academic excellence in this country.

is there to achieve?

Are we looking to produce people who do well in exams (which is what the majority of so-called "good schools" are about) or are we looking to produce young citizens who - as well as having good technical skills in a variety of subjects - are socially aware and understand their responsibilities to others?

I wonder how many of those who've posted here, justifying things like forging addresses to get into a "better" school, have also posted in the thread about young people's behaviour in cinemas, and the wider point about how they are all intent on their own gratification to the exclusion of everyone else?

- then we would cure many of our society's other ills.

The benefits of the kind of place I was lucky enough to attend were the surroundings, the resources and range of cultural and sporting activities that were available. Above all, the place inculcated a habit of curiosity and an independence of mind. It seems to me that all schools should strive to do that.

A genuine locality based comprehensive system must be the best form of educating our children and thus helping create the kind of society we would want.

However, three things mitigate against that. Firstly, state and private education simply cannot exist side by side it seems to me. Especialy, when you add in the faith based schools and areas where Grammar schools still exist as opt-out options.

Secondly, the obession with measuring things has leaked from business into Education. This affects the private as much as the state sector - but instead of creating intellectually enabled young people, we seem intent on applying a numerative norm that does pupils few favours and encourages schools to achieve a mark rather than a standard.

Thirdly, we have a culture which is wary of the notion of genuine excellence for fear of creating "elites". Mission statements abound that call for "excellence" and yet excellence is the one thing we fight against, preferring it seems a lumpen middle.

So, a genuinely comprehensive education that is well resourced and broad based but is prepared to acknowledge talent and encourage excellence - be it in sport, art, craft skills or academic ability is what we should strive for. But, I doubt, it will be achieved any time soon and certinly not soon enough for my kids.

So - back to the jostle and the questions and the spirit-sapping hysteria that marks out making a choice these days about how best to educate your children.

and that is the problem. Most parents are looking solely at Offsted reports to determine which school they aim to send their child to. Where we live in Lichfield we're geographically closest to what was always regarded as the best state run school in the area. However we are not in that schools catchment area. The most recent reports suggest however that the school in question has suffered something of a decline.It is safe to say therefore that it is a constantly changing scene. Teachers have a hell of a job and any criticism levelled is not aimed at them but at the system which is intrinsically wrong. Not that the aims of the system but the execution of those aims.

... that the single most influential aspect of educational attainment is the home background of a child? Nothing else comes close! A so called 'good school' (a term beloved by the media) is usually the one most adept at attracting exactly the kind of pupil who wants to achieve and is highly motivated.
The alternative is to assume that 'bad schools' are coincidentally full of useless teachers, poor management etc but, by a strange coincidence, are usually to be found in deprived inner city areas. The goverment's response is to invoke a culture of blame, name and shame based on spurious league tables and Ofsted bile. The latest headline-grabbing wheeze is to convert the 'failing' school into an academy (ie a private school funded by public money). Has this scheme changed anything? All the evidence suggests not a thing.
Incidentally - a shocking statistic - half of all schools are currently below average. I can confidently predict that this is unlikely ever to change. The government seems to believe otherwise.

is indeed key. I grew up in a school that used to mete out the cane or the slipper as if they were sweeties. Indeed the biology teacher was famed for asking miscreants to stand on the magic spot whilst he thrashed them with a cane that was gleefully named Albert!! However the worst punishment I ever received was to be shamed in front of my house teacher. I had stepped out of line with 4 or 5 other boys on a field trip. The headmaster basically said he expected it from the other lads but i came from 'a good home with good parents' and he expected better of me. That 'lecture' has stayed with me for the last 36 years or so. It changed how I viewed school and taught me to respect the things my parents did for me. It is not until you become a parent yourself that you fully appreciate the need for a good education. Let's face it most of our children will be relatively happy whichever school they go to. Guiding them in the right direction is a hell of a job and financial security and a stable home life are big assets in being able to succeed. Teaching excellence is an additional prerequisite and is it any wonder the system falls short when the Government requires more time be spent on form filling, health and safety and all the other non-related bullshit that could and should be looked after by people other than teachers. The headmaster of my daughters school couldnt take the stress any more and got out of a profession that he had chosen and dedicated all of his working life to. There is no question that the system needs updating in a radical way.

I've just been listening to what Peter Mandelson had to say today about universities and widening access. We're doomed.

What a half-arsed, incoherent rag-tag of management speak bollocks it was. He wants universities to think of students, paying their fees, more as customers. And there's a tacit admission in all of it that the A Level is now worse than uselsss and may actually be actively harmful.
Lovely.

Jesus wept, this is what the problem is. What an horrendously reductive attitude it demonstrates; that the only benefit of education is economic and everything is geared towards maximising economic benefit. In Mandelson's world Einstein, Heisenberg, Wittgenstein, Pauli and Dirac would have been told that their research was not of economic value and would not have been supported. Darwin would have struggled too. What we get is a safe, risk averse culture that will hit the arbitrary targets demanded, but will do nothing of any worth whatsoever.

An education is not necessarily about what job it gets you (and haven't today's kids been drilled into thinking that?). It's about a training to think, to ask questions, to challenge established and entrenched viewpoints, to gain (as Kant said) an intellectual maturity, an abilitiy to stand without recourse to another authority and have confidence in the power of one's own intellect and arguments. For me an education is about producing people who are aware of themselves and their role in the world. some of these people will be bankers, engineers or teachers. Others will be doctors, nurses, architects or even artists. The problem is, that in the Mandelson system, some of these people are more valuable than others.

It almost makes me glad he'll be out on his arse this time next year, but the alternative is really any more appealing.

I have worked as a music teacher in the state sector for five years and agree wholeheartedly with many of the concerns voiced in this forum. None of the comments about low pass marks for public examinations or poor discipline have been exaggerated.

Even so, I do not believe in 'standardising' schools; a lot of people have written about imposing a policy of 'one local comprehensive school', which parents have no choice but to send their children to. This will never happen - private schools lift too great a burden off the state to justify nationalising them, just as Grammar and Faith Schools are often too successful to warrant handing them over to the LEA. For this reason, the socialist dream of comprehensive education will never work - schools will never be truly comprehensive until other selective schools are taken out of the equation.

I am astonished how critics often respond to failing standards in education by demanding the abolition of our best schools - grammars, private and many faith schools - instead of focusing on the failing schools themselves. A good school needs impeccable, innovative leadership from the headteacher, strict behaviour guidelines, committed teachers and impressive resources. And that can be achieved anywhere, regardless of the school intake - I have seen it with my own eyes! We don't need a radical change - this is our education system and we're pretty much stuck with it. But we do need the best headteachers we can find, and a little patience.

It really is the best education you can buy.

Then get involved. Support the PTA/Parent council or whatever. You'll be helping to improve the school, an active member of your community and showing your kids that education matters and is not just a commodity to be bought like a tin of beans.

a year or two back. These were destined to change schools by 'turning them around'. Then most of them disappeared without trace. Then there was the fast track initiative in which Oxbridge high flyers would become heads in a very short time - another failure.
Then they bought into the idea of Academies - sponsored by industry (oh yeah!) which would turn around the failing schools. It doesn't happen. Tt won't work.
There are strategies to combat educational failure but they are long, slow and not gimmicky. Smaller schools would be a start and less emphasis on league tables and the culture of blame, name and shame.
There are as many qualified teachers not actually teaching as there are doing the job. A phenomenal amount of money is wasted - spent on recruiting and training. They then vote with their feet. So what is driving them out of the profession? Not challenging enough? Too much time on their hands? Kids too well-behaved? Not enough scrutiny then? Not enough goverment initiatives perhaps? Parents not demanding enough?
Or maybe a centralizing government obsessed with control which treats them as if they were members of the petty criminal classes engaged in some devious, anti-social activity.

...as long as their kid gets to go there. The same enthusiasm for secondary moderns (an inevitable by product - you can't have one without the other) is markedly less apparent. This might be something to do with the fact that the worst performing schools in the country are not actually in inner cities but in places which have retained the eleven-plus.

...good money you throw at bad schools, I can't see anything - in the short term, at least - that can combat the pervasive white working class belief that education (particularly for boys, obviously) is fundamentally emasculatory, and that the conscientious are legitimate targets for bullying.

I know it's always been there, but the aggressive and occasionally horrifying disdain I've seen meted out to my nieces and nephews is in another league compared to the mild joshing I received for being a "swot", and which was always countered by the protection and drive to succeed that the vast majority of my teachers displayed.

For that reason, it's perfectly understandable that concerned parents who cannot afford to educate their children in the private sector are going to cut whatever corners they can to see their kids clear, particularly if their local school has neither the will to protect the academic nor the wherewithal to "pull through" the kids that care.

as part of my job developing export trade. Many have employed East European workers and most are nothing but complimentary about their work ethic and their diligence. On the other hand my brother in law who has his own company gave a job to his son. His idea of a great working day is if the phone doesnt ring. notwithstanding the need to attain academic excellence it is the responsibility of parents and teachers to also instil other factors into our kids - hard work, discipline, ambition and a kindness of spirit. I hear all the arguments about success being another part of the postcode lottery and I dont buy it. Aspects of human nature are learned and we must take a large portion of the blame if our kids end up delinquent or on the scrapheap.

1. If you ignore qualifying statements such as, 'possibly', that means you are attempting to get yourself in a lather about a statement taken out of context.

1a. As a matter of fact, I am a teacher of Science. Consequently, in terms of the scientific method, if students who attend Public schools attain better exam results than those who do not attend such institutions then we must consider ALL possible reasons for this state of affairs. One of which is that POSSIBLY (as I stated originally, yet you fail to account for) that 'some form of genetic nous' may contibute to this - NOT intelligence, you ought to note - you cannot ignore it, simply because you don't agree with it, personally. That would be unscientific.

Personally, I consider it unlikely, for reasons already expressed by other writers. However, the fact that people who send their children to public schools have to have a relatively large sum of money available for their children's education suggests that they are adapted to today's society. Adaptation. The conrnerstone of natural selection. Does money = brains? I would say not, but I wouldn't dream of ruling it out on any basis other than if it can be proved statistically.

2. Evidence that exams are getting easier? How about the pass rate? Formerly at around 25%, now it's getting towards 65% for GCSE. Do you seriously think that students are better now than they were? University lecturers don't appear to think so. Public schools who put their students through the baccalaureate don't appear to think so. Having seen the exams since about 1985 to date, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that exams are a lot easier now than before. The curriculum examines fewer topics in less depth than even five years ago. Let there be no doubt.

3.'Corrected for social class'? Get thee to the House of Commons, man! What you are saying is that if, in some way, we can ignore social class in terms of how well people write answers to exam questions, we can say there are no differences in public and state schools. Appalling!

What you appear to be saying is this - Social class has an effect on education. So, let's manipulate some statistics so that they ignore that and pretend everything is alright.

I say to you - I have never heard such utter tosh as this 'adjusted for social class' statistic. Get real. Literally.

4. Public School have problem behaviour.

Yes. But what they don't have is any obligation to take in students that have been excluded from other institutions. Which state schools do. Another thing they have, which state schools don't, is the ability to permanently exclude these problem students. Nor do they have to go through the endless panels of governors, local authority committees and psychologists in order to kick anyone out.

QED - the problems that Public schools face, in terms of poor behaviour,is in no way comparable to the problems that state schools face. Fact.

5. Lowering the leaving age to 14 = Victorian Britain.

Not quite. Education wasn't compulsory at all in the Victorian era. I value education immensely. So do many, many children. However, those that do not are hampering the ability of some of these interested kids, in terms of how successful their education will be. If you don't want to go to school, get a crappy job and see how your prosepects look. A few years down the line, their raging hormones may have subsided and they might do very well - let's hope so.

Finally, I would add that I cannot comprehend any MP sending their child to a Public school. If the system provided to the public is not good enough for their own children, it's not good enough for any child. By all means, have public schools if you want them, but not for those who decide what goes on in state schools.

Though I confess I haven't read absolutely all of them.

But I think many of them tend towards blaming schools or the education system when the really crucial thing is the attitudes of parents. If a child grows up in a house where there are no books, where the parents have a negative or apathetic attitude to education, where thinking and hard work aren't praised then that child will be disadvantaged no matter where he or she goes to school.

And commitment to educational values is not necessarily linked to money. The original argument about whether Eton's puplis would still do better if they were sent to a run-down state school is specious because they would, presumably, still have the same sort of parental backing that they enjoy (albeit the sort of backing that's content to ship them out of the parental home for most of the year). It's not genetics, it's a belief that education is important.

And I realise I just used the phrase "run-down state school". My experience is that these are rare. Millions and milions of pounds have been invested into teachers and buildings to make the educational opportunities for the many much better than, say, 15 years ago.

My son attends the local comp and I'm a governor there. He's happy there and seems to be learning (although I think he could be pushed a bit harder). The school gets excellent academic results and takes a very firm line on bullying of any kind. There are the same (maybe more) opportunities for sport, art, music and drama that I had when I was at grammar school forty years ago - and I think this is almost as important as classroom learning. The teachers are dedicated to getting the most they can from each child.

The problem with parents opting out of the state system is that those who do are likely to be the ones that the state system needs to keep pressure on the schools to stay up to scratch. It's the parents who will come into the school, not to complain that little Johnnny was told off, but to ask why little Johnny is not progressing as fast as they think he should be. Now I realise that staying in a system you doubt in order to improve it for other people's kids would require an amount of altruism probably beyond the call of duty.

So I don't know the answer. We certainly considered private education when our son was 11 but didn't do it for a number of reasons:

1) We couldn't afford it!
2) We are lucky enough to live within catchment of the best state school in our city
3) My son was adamant he wanted to go to the same school as his friends (although I'm sure he would have made new ones)
4) Deep down, neither of us wanted to opt out of the state system (which served us well)

1. & 1a. - I don't agree with you. I think it was pretty clear that f) was a relatively dubious point, in comparison. But not so minor that it can be automatically ruled out, which isn't the same as giving it equal credence.

2. You want evidence? Think about it, the government aren't going to fund any research that might not agree with their perspective - see the recent cannabis research debacle.

Exam boards aren't going to admit anything, because then they'll lose their contracts, won't they?

All you need to do is to look at the syllabuses over the years. Vast swathes have been cut out.

Is teaching better today? In general, it probably is, a bit. However, it's better in terms of a homogeneous set of information that must be imparted in a specific manner. It's about passing exams and the rules get bent. Or interpreted in creative ways, shall we say?

The bottom line is, there's absolutely no comparison in today's exams, in comparison to even 15 years ago. If you want to think otherwise, that's groovy, but you're dead wrong.

3. The report says that rich kids do well, regardless of which sector they attend. I'm not saying there are NO good state schools, that would be stupid. I'm saying that some state schools give decent kids a better chance than others. I'm also saying that ALL public schools give their students a better chance than state schools can. And it's not because of the school or the teachers, it's because of the kids' backgrounds.

Which is EXACTLY what I'm telling you, isn't it?

4. Ok.

5. I know people personally who had very little schooling. Fewer kids fall through the net than ever before, I'm sure. Turf them out? Too right. Why not have them on street corners at 14? If that's what they want? If their parents don't make them go to school when it's no longer compulsory (14), why make them someone else's responsibility? If the parents care, they'll make them go to school. If they don't, then what their kids get up to is their own problem.

that private school have considerably smaller class sizes? Add this to the fact that you are less likely to have to teach several kids with some form of behavioural or emotional 'syndrome' (it is called inclusion) means that teachers can give plenty of individual attention to each child and attempt to do more developmental (confidence building) tasks in the classroom, than is the case in the state sector.
It would be an interesting experiment to require these schools to take the permanently excluded pupils from the state sector (after all most qualify for charity status). This would test their claims to superiority. They are lauded by Ofsted and praised in the league tables, with the inference that they are achieving far more than the average comprehensive due to some magical ethos and better teaching. I expect this will not happen.

1) Academies Programme - millions are spent trying to lure sponsors from the private sector. These remain scarce so others have to be cajoled e.g. The Church of England. An attempt to produce private schools using the public purse and doomed to fail (no evidence of any success so far)
2) The PFI programme - much more expensive than goverment building programmes but thought to be better because it uses the 'private sector' - a financial time bomb - we will be paying for it for centuries
3) Mass exodus of teachers - there are as many teachers not teaching as there are actually in it. It costs £19000 to entice each trainee into training - swathes drop out in the first five years... due in part to ...
4) Ofsted - hugely expensive inspection system designed to find fault - name and shame etc. Ex-teachers being paid lots of cash to judge those whose job they cannot do themselves.

Never in the field of education has so much been spent in such a short time to so little effect. Of course, when we see no improvement it will be obvious why - too many incompetent teachers in need of sacking and replacing by ex-army types (keeps 'em off the streets) and failed bankers. On and on and on for ever and ever....

I went to a northern Grammar School from 1977 to 1983. The greatest tragedy was that a good proportion of the bright working class council estate kids who passed their 11 plus dropped out by the third year and went to a secondary modern. I was reflecting on this the other day with a old pal who still lives there. And what I didn't realise that he did, is these same "bright lads" may not have gone on to university (the measure of success at the time) but they run their own businesses and have done well in other ways.

Secondly, my oldest lad steps up to big school next year. We're Catholic, so the question answers itself. Based on gut feel and feedback from parents and kids who go there, it seems a good school. All we hope he gets a decent rounded education, makes friends from all walks of life and does what makes him happy.