Worst forms of selection in schools: Views of M'snetters

The worst form of overt selection in schools is religion.

NO 4 year old has a concrete understanding of their beliefs : choosing a religious school at that stage is down to the parents' prejudice.

Faith secondary schools perpetuate sexist and racist distinctions and facilitate the 'silo' mentality that allows so many minority groups to feel excluded from the liberal democracy in which they are growing up.

The worst form of covert selection is uniform / equipment
YYY to the logos on everything and the blazer only from Peter Jones
and the glossy prospectus that gets sent to the home address with the 'wrong' postcode.

Selective state selection probably works for those on the right side of the cut. But it labels all of the rest as failures at age 11 which is not good for the long term economic wealth of the country.

Wordfactory
Out of interest, does your data mining discriminate between "comps" within range of a superselective so areas where the kids know that the really bright kids are not at their school
and those where "comp" genuinely means all those who are not paying fees ?

And YYY if you could knock some sense into careers officers at many schools - no, sociology is not a facilitator subject for vet school - it would be good for the country in general, not just where you work.

Many too are going to be put off the Bullingdon style antics portrayed in the press.

I do wonder about how the split from the different types of school is between science and the arts at Oxbridge. My impression is, only going by the schools I have had dealings with, that Cambridge is seen as more accessible (and better for maths, science and geography) so they are more prepared to encourage students to have a try if their ambitions lie in that direction.

nit yes indeed.

And that is a hard bridge to cross.

It's also true that we turn down more comprehensive applicants than any other sector (statistically). And I'm sure that that filters out as 'we don't want you' when really it's often 'you don't have the grades' or 'you took the wrong subjects' ...the last being so frustrating!

But the other myths that abound, schools could really help with.

Some recent corkers I've come across;

It costs more.
You have to waer your gown every day.
The lectures are nine to five.
You have to prepare for extra exams.

Gunznroses I think that has always been true to some extent, especially for girls, sadly. My girl's grammar school never sent anyone to Oxford at all. The year before I went there they sent one to Cambridge, but no more during the following seven years. Absolute droves were sent to teacher training colleges, regardless of whether they would make good teachers or not. (Seen at the time as a nice little job which filled the gap until your real career of marriage began!)

What strikes me though is that, I think understandably, many state sixth formers aren't going to find the idea of being one of 25% of state school kids at a university very attractive! Which is of course self fulfilling, but it does mean I think that one of the most important 'myths' is not a myth! and doesn't lend itself to logical busting.

lavulcan I am not remotely dismissive of comprehensive pupils. Why would I spend so much time visiting them if I were?

Seriously?

What I am frustrated about is the schools they attend.

mum yes, the cost of tertiary education is very off putting to some families. And an increasing number choose to attend their local university to save on living costs.

However, this isn't the whole story, as Oxbridge actually has so many bursaries, and the cost of accommodation is quite cheap compared with many other universities.

What we've found is a fair bit of lack of interest from the schools in widening access. Or a reluctance to put things in place that would encourage widening access (sometimes this reluctance tips into outright resistance).

So some schools are still giving poor advice or no advice to their brightest pupils about GCSE and A level options.

Some schools are still encouraging or not discouraging their pupils from sitting too many GCSEs, thus diluting their chances at teritairy level.

Some schools are still peddling the myths of equivalence both in terms of qualifications and universities.

Some schools do almost nothing to help students navigate the process of application.

Some schools do almost nothing to bust the Oxbridge myths and some even collude in them.

But ultimately, one of the biggest problems is that the brightest DC are just not getting good enough grades!

What Word doesn't say is how many who were privately educated take the places at Oxbridge. I thought it was at least half. From reading Word's posts I get the feeling that she is dismissive towards comprehensive pupils. Does that attitude come across to the applicants themselves - they say they want to widen access but in practice, not really?

However, some of it is definitely a product of the school's expectations - Eton expected the likes of Cameron to go to Oxford - we could discuss whether he is particularly intelligent or not.

Gunznroses where comps are not supporting the children well enough in their application choices, some comps don't even suggest it as a possibility but simply direct students to the local universities, and sometimes actively discouraging it by perpetuating the idea that, "its not for them" I've not come across this. However, the non selective schools in my area all offer a grammar stream. One non selective school runs their grammar stream under the guidance of a highly sought after selective school.

I think the barrier referred to is the one where comps are not supporting the children well enough in their application choices, some comps don't even suggest it as a possibility but simply direct students to the local universities, and sometimes actively discouraging it by perpetuating the idea that, "its not for them".

*TheWordFactory 25% of Oxbridge undergraduates are from comps. Given that this is the biggest cohort of children in the UK, it's not that great.

We've done shed loads of widening access stuff and contextualised offers. But we've reached the point now where the biggest barrier are the schools themselves.*

Interesting, in what way are the schools a barrier?

Do you not think the actual cost of the degree course and the extras that go with it are off putting to many families with DCs attending comps? Not to suggest that there are not wealthy families with children attending comps. However, I suspect that there are a higher percentage of higher/middle income earners at private & selective/grammar schools. Perhaps I am wrong?

Molio I'm pretty sure the DC in question would have significantly more issues with selection for leafy comps by wealth than selection for grammars by ability.

I will also add that many who have DCs sitting the 11 plus/CEM to gain entry into a grammar have the financial means to pay for tuition for their DCs. I appreciate that some DCs are tutored at home or sit the exam without any tutoring (the latter most definitely not being the case in the area I live in). However, if you take a look at the www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewforum.php?f=64
you'll be hard pushed to find an area where private tuition is not the norm. Again, I would class this as selection by wealth.

The thing is lavulcan there are always children who do exceptionally well from Comps.

However, what we're talking about is the general pattern.

25% of Oxbridge undergraduates are from comps. Given that this is the biggest cohort of children in the UK, it's not that great.

We've done shed loads of widening access stuff and contextualised offers. But we've reached the point now where the biggest barrier are the schools themselves.

Molio I'm pretty sure the DC in question would have significantly more issues with selection for leafy comps by wealth than selection for grammars by ability.

Perhaps in your experience that is the case. However, my experience is very different. My local selective schools (all 7 of them) have catchment areas and wealth is buying an advantage in gaining a place (they all but one offer distance places). The properties surrounding those schools have an inflated price tag. One such example is a housing development next to one of the most sought after selective schools (distance catchment of 230 meters). Depending on proximity to the school the price of a two bedroom flat ranges from £650 pcm to £1,250 pcm (identical size and design I might add). I do class this as selection by wealth.

Molio - Why is selection by ability an equality of opportunity issue? It isn't really, is it?

Where I am those who achieve the highest marks in the 11 plus have a choice of 7 schools. Those who either don't sit the 11 plus or don't score high enough have a choice of 1. Do you see this as equality of opportunity?

Kitties I can't remember which thread it was on, (might have been this one higher up), but one poster took another to task and said words to the effect 'but just think how much better they would have done if they had gone to a selective school'. An other came back with something like '3 A*s and a place to do medicine at Cambridge, could they really do better?', thus shutting them up. I had to laugh!

You know what, having watched two DSs go through GCSEs at different schools, I'm buggered if I care that one got As and Bs rather than A*s.

Maybe a pushier school would have made him up his game. Or maybe the happy life he led at his chosen school meant he did better than he would have otherwise.

Actually, I'd love to know the best forms of selection in terms of achievement but also mental health and happiness.

Well said Mintyy.

Think OP has gone in on supply today with such commitment and interest in education

Talkin, I too had assumed from the writer's style that it was a he. I'm not sure why, and I'm intrigued that words on a screen, about a gender-neutral subject, can suggest this.

Sorry, I have to laugh at the thought of a child from say Northumbria going to Walsall, or Penzance going to a super-selective (i.e Colyton) in East Devon, near the border of Dorset, on a daily basis. I grant it would be possible if they took boarders, but not everyone wants their child to board.

lavolcan I don't know the exact number, but there are more than you say.

Devon, Colchester, Walsal spring to mind.

No doubt someone else will know.

But there are too few. That I will accept.

What we do know though, is where they do exist, they are extremely successful. The LEAs which have the most pupils going to Oxbridge and RG universities have selective schools in them, the LEAs with the least pupils are all non-selective.

Mine went to, or still at, a comprehensive. 2 at Oxford, 1 at Cambridge, 1 wants to be a vet and the other hasn't a clue ! Never tutored, from good old working class stock and school has been fab for them and their friends. And I am very glad they have learned that people are lovely regardless of money, race or educational achievement.

All academies lack standards

Even the Liverpool Blue Coat OP?

OP you asked mumtryingherbest if she was familiar with the chools you had listed. Well I am. I am very familar with the Liverpool Blue Coat. It does not give a chance to the children from the "rough side of town" at all. It's demographics claerly show it has a middle class intake with neglible levels of SEN. It is an academy, it could do whatever it wanted with its admissions policy. It chooses not to. It goes purely who does best on an exam one morning in October.

1/5 of the children in my DC's nice, school in an affluent South Liverpool suburb are doing the exam this Saturday. Every single one of those kids has had tutoring (mine included). Multiply that by the number of schools across Merseyside and edges of Cheshire and Lancashire - because parents will travel that far to get a private standard education for free - and do you really think the bright kids of Norris Green and Croxteth are getting a level playing field? Do not kid yourself that the old style interviews gave options to those children through any sense of benevolence; TLBC did exactly what it was obliged to do to maintain its status.

I wrestle with my conscience over this. My child is bright. If he gets in is it because he is one of the brightest? Or is it because I could pay for someone to give him an advantage in learning the skills needed for the exam and covering those bits of maths he hasn't yet covered in school. Will I have "stolen" a place from a brighter child with less advanatages?

I say it again, for the third time, TLBC has excellent exam results but splitting out the results for high attainers at other South Liverpool Secondary schools shows that TLBC is not significantly better and cosndiering the other schools are factoring in more disdavanatged children and more with SEN it makes me question whether Blue Coat's results are based purely on having considtently bright cohorts than anything to do with the teaching and learning?

You may ask why I am putting my child forward for the exam when I have ethical objections to how it selects and operates. DC wants to go. REALLY wants to go.

Word, I am not sure that it was any better in the average grammar school. I remember that we had a couple of girls who were clearly off the scale compared with the rest of us. They were not served well at all.

I note that you haven't answered my question about how many super-selectives their are. Unless you live in London, and I think Birmingham, they are non-existent. So how does the very, very bright child in Cornwall, Northumbria, Suffolk, etc. fare?

lavolcan the concern over how high ability children fare in comprehensives is long standing.

I work at Oxbridge and it's a massive issue for us!

I second everything Word has just said :)