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

I see this has turned into the usual pointless argument.

Unless you are in favour of non selective state with no other option available and ignoring the fact that the wealthy will simply "home educate" using private tutors there's no point commenting.

That is the reason we need academic state schools, the brightest who can come and take the "toffs" on at their own game and beat them. The public school system needs taking down, ultimately it is the reason why we have the politicians we have now.

Do you really think that the twerps running the country are academically bright rather than just rich, supremely arrogant and well connected?

The "toffs" want selection in Private schools as then the "scum" as they have always called us behind closed doors fight among ourselves and are weaker.

Abolish selection in the state sector especially by religious extremists
Make all of the kids realise that they are all "on the curve"
and they will do better at fighting the unmerited arrogance of those who have been handed the silver spoons.

Smoke I'm all in favour of academic state schools in fact my DS had a place at one of the best ones but I don't see why independent schools academic or not they need "taking down". Why can't both exist then those who can pay can decide where they wish to send their DC's.

Happy. Its hardly surprising that boarding schools costing up to £35K a year are more socially exclusive than 30 years ago. 30 years a public school education cost about £10k Pa now its £35k pa if the cost had stayed with inflation, the cost would probably be around £20k pa not 35K pa. The rise in fees as out-stripped everything apart from property prices . Private, Public schools are far more socially , economically exclusive than ever, sadly it will mean that the country will become more elite than ever.

That is the reason we need academic state schools, the brightest who can come and take the "toffs" on at their own game and beat them. The public school system needs taking down, ultimately it is the reason why we have the politicians we have now.

Talkin I can't comment or agree/disagree with the OP's statement that state schools are being less overly selective or that faith/grammar schools are more socially exclusive because I don't know enough about them. But I think that many independent schools in particular in the boarding sector (apart from the tiny few that offer substantial bursaries) are more "socially exclusive" than at any time well at least than they were when I went to school 30+ years ago.

I think OP has retired from the thread/forum. Very good at posing questions, not so forthcoming with replies.

Do an advanced search. I CBA to type it all again.

Do you agree with the OP BTW?

Talkin how many children were in the whole of the Y11 cohort at your DDs school last year? I'm not clear what you mean by 'the whole group of 40'. What percentage of the entire cohort is that? Or are there only 40 children in each year?

Also, would you mind saying which 13 subjects these children do/ can do? Is it Methods of Maths, Application of Maths, Eng Lang, Eng Lit, A MFL, RE, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and then four options? What are the options? How does it work? It sounds as though they have great breadth but are all 13 subjects full GCSEs/ IGCSEs?

No Talkin you clearly stated that you "challenged any selective school to get better results from it's top 40 academic kids than DD and her friends got".
You didn't say except schools whom only select with "kids "decent" enough to pass their selection interviews."
I'm not knocking you DD's achievements or her school but you challenged and I responded.

Talkin. I wonder whether you have had a look at the "To be tired of Teachers
Exaggerating thread on AIBU". It goes on to talk about two twins in yr11 , who are both struggling to achieve C grades in English/Maths. The negative comments from teachers and from posters about their future employment opportunities are very sad and depressing. The third way I have described could be a way to get such pupils in to carers that normally require A level or degree level qualifications. Employers and companies need to look away from solely academic qualifications , sadly in many cases they will not give a chance to a keen young person because of not having a magic C in English/Maths. The way to change that would be to give companies incentives to employ such people.

'They are there only 1/6 of the time.' Eh?

Your average school day lasts 7hrs, that's about 50% of a school kid's day, 5 days a week, 30+ weeks a year. That's a lot of time to be in the wrong place.

Serving pupils well is not just about getting them A*s. I don't get how you can be anti selection yet pro setting btw, I guess because it suits your DD well being in the tops sets and all that.

Also, 'Selection in state schools has not resulted in tangible overall improvements.'

This 'experiment' has not really been done apart from in NI where I think you'll find there have been tangible improvements across the board.

Happy
I'm fully aware of what selective schools can do with the kids they consider "decent" enough to pass their selection interviews.

My point is that DCs school did it while teeming with the ones that the OP wants to exclude from access to a decent education.

Selection in state schools has not resulted in tangible overall improvements - especially of the "interview the parents" variety that dinosaurs like the OP prefer.

I was merely trying to point out that schools can serve pupils well without segregating them into silos.

Talkin at DS2 school the top 50 got at least 8 A's out of 9 (I get this data from the recently published "A list" which was drawn up purely on GCSE results) I suspect if you came down to the top 40 I suspect its all As.

Molio
The stats for my kids comp are as they are
The whole of the group of 40 got A/A* in all 13 of the GCSEs they took.
And they did that with the school contaminated with the sort of pupils that the OP wishes not to interact with at all.

agoodiniings
I do not know and frankly I do not care.
School is not the only source of education for children.
They are only there 1/6 of the time.

The more important issue is that selection does not work for many pupils and it does not appear to have benefitted the UK economy.
Its a good thing that the OP and their ilk have retired.
Now time to retire their prejudiced ideas.

agoodinnings By the time she gets to the 6th form she will have studied above and beyond what the exam syllabi dictate as will all of her contemporaries in selective schools. Do you have anything that backs up your claim that every child attending a selective school will have studied above and beyond what the exam syllabi dictate?

I ask this as one of my local selective schools has published a parent survey on their website. One of the main concerns the parents have is that the school is not pushing the more able students enough.

TalkinPeace

'As I said after results day - I challenge any selective school to get better results from its top 40 academic kids than DD and her friends got.'

It's not just about results. My DD is in Y9 and is already well stuck into the GCSE material for all subjects. By the time she gets to the 6th form she will have studied above and beyond what the exam syllabi dictate as will all of her contemporaries in selective schools.

Can you say this of your DD and her friends?

How many students were in your DD's year group Talkin? (in other words what was 40 students as a percentage of the total?). And what exactly were the marks of those 40? Were they all A? All A/A? Some Bs? If you throw out a challenge, you need to give figures.

LaVolcan
As Boffinmum said above, selective schooling was incredibly detrimental to British manufacturing because it equated practical skills with failing the 11+

There should be no split at all between "vocational" and "academic" learning before the age of 16 at the earliest.

All kids should be receiving the same basic core curriculum in the same core learning environment
just that on a Thursday or a Tuesday
some will do extra MFL and extra science
others will do hairdressing or stable management or engine mechanics

keeping them together, understanding each others skills and needs will do more to encourage people to WANT to check out different paths
far more than divisive and demoralising selection at 11.

As I said after results day - I challenge any selective school to get better results from its top 40 academic kids than DD and her friends got.
And they already have the phone number of a good farrier

I certainly think that we don't do vocational education well. This is despite a number of good reports being commissioned and then totally ignored.
However, what I don't agree with is that "not academic = vocational". I just don't think that children/anyone can be split up into sheep and goats in this way.

thing is I live in a comp area, at the edge of a v rough council estate (most of whose kids go to the local school)
I see absolutely no evidence for your 20% needing separate treatment

a few % are in special schools, a teeny fraction of which are secure

but the vast, vast majority do 4 days of school and one day of college from year 10 - all within the umbrella of the main school so that they are able to remain integrated

sadly parents who have only experienced selective schools seem to have an irrational fear of and lack of understanding of those at the other end of the bell curve

they are not subhuman
its a shame that people like the OP show so little care for them

I think having just watched "Too Tough To Teach" the Ian Mikardo School could be a blueprint as how the third type of school could function. Obviously Ian Mikardo is probably an extreme example, however it is school model that could be adapted for the type of pupils who are lost within a typical academic based education.

PRU units are about getting the pupil back in to the mainstream classroom, they are not about finding employment or a future for said children.
These children are likely to benefit far more in an environment that shows them a way forward with viable employment opportunities in something they are good at or like. It could be possible that with hard work , that these pupils could be ahead of graduates at 21 .

I thought when you talk borderline you were talking about "borderline" 11+ fail or C/D GCSE passes. The pupils in this 20% (note I don't say bottom, they just require a different education based on employment or skills) would be easy to spot quite early. They would be on the whole ,pupils who show no interest in traditional learning disruptive and bored pupils.

The kids who start "good" and fall apart would be asked " do you want an "Academic or a different type of education". No pupil would be admitted to this third type of schooling unless it was likely they would achieve less than D grades in their GCSEs.

The kids who start with a "Shit" life and want an academic education, will be in the "high school" we are not talking high level ability here just D grade standard.

how would you define the 20%?

What about the borderline ones?

What about kids who have had a shit start in life but then pull it together ..... how do they re integrate from such a different start ?

What about kids who start good and their lives fall apart, are they demoted to the 20%

Surely PRUs attached to comprehensive schools are a simpler, cheaper and tried and tested approach?

I described the type of school on page 4 of this thread which would suit the 20% or so " community". It would predominately be a school that would first find a type of skill or interest that pupils not able to adapt to a traditional academic curriculum could improve upon. Its mission as a school would be find employment for these youngsters in areas where they showed skills or interest. This could be done by Government giving funding to businesses , who were prepared to take pupils on at 16 who had achieved less than 5 E grades at GCSE (for E.G) . These pupils would still be part of the school until 18 years of age but it would be a joint exercise with the employer .

For every successful Pupil who came though the program , the Government could give the company concerned a cash payment. This could be as follows £1500 for initial employment at (16) £5000 for 5 years employment and £10000 should the pupil make Managerial level in under 6 years.

Failing this approach those kids who do not buy in to it, should just be thrown in to a classroom with bars on the windows and looked doors .
The classroom would contain a large Television screen (belted Down) playing Jeremy Kyle until 3.30 pm Monday- Friday.

I can't remember even taking the 11+, such was the lack of "importance" attached to it at the time (yet in reality it was more important passing it then then now).

That might have been your experience, but it certainly wasn't mine. The 11+ absolutely dominated the last two years of junior school until the exam was taken. I moved house, quite some considerable distance, and it was the same in both places.