Julian Bradley wrote:
> Who was it said: "Ahhhhh.... even in my end-of-a-long-day knackered
> state I can recognise a sweeping generalisation when I see one!
> hehehe"
> In N Bucks until at least 1997 it was a straight issue of the 12+
> exam - now probably 11+. If doing the needful to the necessary people
> meant
> anything other than helping the boys with their homework there's not
> a cats chance in hell that ours would have got in.
>
> We were OUTSIDE the catchment area and there is no special premium on
> houses around here, but significant numbers of children were/are
> admitted from outside the catchment area - enough to ensure that there was
> a
> school / council run bus service for the 45 minute journey.
Apologies for lack of precision and/or clarity. I was referring to the local
situation. There is only one area where the wife and I could live and send
the kids to a grammar school while continuing in our present jobs. A house
which would cost £400k where we are now costs £600k-£700k in the catchment
area for the revelant grammar schools. Believe me, we have looked into it in
great detail. And, as I said, even if we moved into the area tomorrow it
wouldn't guarantee entrance. Now, then, if anyone wants to criticise us for
not thinking ahead when we were young and foolish and child-free, then you
might have a point.
> Your idea that state services should represent a reliable floor
> rather than a state enforced ceiling appeals - but that's an old and well
> rehearsed debate.
One thing I am learning as I age is that things are often the way they are
for good reason - though not always.
|