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

What would your third type of school for those kids look like, smokepole?

Failing the 11+ had nothing to do with their attitude to education, in fact 30 years ago it was not not nearly as intense as it is now. People just went to which ever school they were sent to. 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).

The problem with my school was more about, what you could do to avoid lessons and learning than to try and improve yourself. The coolest people were those who did the least and wagged the most. I was seen as a bit "odd" and exotic there ( being a child of Wealthy parents, who owned Amusement arcades and Pubs) . The most bizarre thing about the school was I was seen as "posh" and a bit of a swot for getting 4 D grades at GCSE in 1990.

The grammar school my "estranged" sister went to , enabled her to get 8 A grade O Levels and 2 A grade A levels (would have been 3 but for her spite and stupidity ). Sister's grammar was and still is a very good school . My old school is now an academy and is good and getting better .

There are three types of children academic top 25-30% children who want to learn and capable with hard work 50% . (This will cause uproar) 20% of kids who are not capable of academic work through either intelligence , attitude or just being "bad" . The problem at my school was not the middle 50%, but the other 20% who made it impossible for those who wanted to learn to do so. The 20% should have been not in my school but in a third type of school.

You'd rather a few failed?

So you'd be happy if a few kids ended up as illiterate adults who felt they had no place in society? You'd be happy if they were left to rot, possibly circling around the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives. I'm sure you'd feel differently if it was your house they burgled. Even more differently if it was your child allowed to fail.

Thankgodimretired, where did you teach?

Having recently retired, it would seem that you have been teaching for over forty years...strange. This is coupled with the fact that your only posts coincide with the long thread on education choices.

Why do you want the views of MNetters?

I have to laugh at smokepole's suggestion that all grammar schools were 'highly successful' before they were destroyed.

A good many mediocre ones, like the two my brother and I attended, were thankfully destroyed at the same time. It wasn't unknown for either school to churn out people, (supposedly in the top 25% of the ability range), with no O levels, and at least half got less than 5 O levels.

As for Secondary Moderns being full of children for complex social reasons - yes, because they tended to be dumping grounds.

And doesn't it occur to you smokepole that a child's attitude to learning and education might be influenced by their families, so that the 11+ failure was part and parcel of this, not just some co-incidence?

smokepole - do you not think your school would have been better if the percentage of families with those sorts of attitudes was smaller, i.e. if it had a critical mass of children from engaged families?

very interesting Boffin. Tutoring in 1957 Ha Ha.

Points: Secondary modern's from the period of 1946-64 have nothing in common with any school today, so to compare with schools dating from 2000 is wrong.

The report shows that the number of grammar school educated pupils is the same (roughly) as 1979 so after the large scale abolition of the 1970s grammar schools have been allowed to function. The reason being that many parents never wanted their abolition in the first place. It never made the bad schools good, by destroying highly successful grammar schools. I say that as some one educated in a 1980s Secondary Modern school . The reason my school was "shit" was not because of the neighbouring grammar schools ,but because of complex social reasons. The children' s attitude to education and behaviour had nothing to do with failing the 11+ but to do with their families attitude to education and learning.

Sorry, that should have said fee paying secondary schools before 1944.

Clarinet9

There are lots and lots of publications about social selection at grammar schools between 1944 and 2012+, but this one is quite readable and describes in details the categories of people who were more likely to get their children into grammar schools. These are the same groups that populated free paying secondary schools before 1944, which you could confirm if you were to read something like Walford's book on the history of independent schools (my copy is at work so I can't look it up for you).

Here

Interesting, roughly 12-15% of pupils at grammar schools in the present year have attended independent fee paying prep schools, so to an extent the practice continues.

"So if people are anti selection are they in favour of completely comprehensive education (by that I mean no banding of any sort)"

Comprehensive education doesn't mean mixed ability teaching.

It means it caters to the needs of children across the whole ability range. But in different sets.

Good comps set for every subject, thereby offering the right pace of learning to each student in each subject.

So a child who is way ahead of an average Grammar school student in maths but couldn't get into a grammar because of less good literacy, can be educated to their potential in maths while getting more support in literacy.

In my DC's comp they are broadly streamed and then set within and across that for Maths, English, Science, MFL.

Banding can mean splitting applicants into ability bands and accepting a % from each band to get a genuinely comprehensive intake. It can be used (possibly with a lottery for those places) to reduce the impact of social selection through things like house prices.

West London Free School open day.

'We are looking for children who will relish an academic education.'

'Parents are expected to support their children with their homework.'

'This is not a school for those who expect to be spoon fed.'

'Please think carefully before you apply here.'

Which I guess translates as 'If your little darling has had behavioural or learning difficulties at primary, or if you are not confident academically yourself, please apply elsewhere.'

There's 'non-selective', and then there's making it very clear what kind of child and family will 'fit in'.

What does this mean "never came close to"?

If you mean in terms of gcse results, then that's hardly surprising is it .

If you mean something else, could you elaborate?

Clarinet9
I am utterly in favour of comprehensive state education :
not sure what you mean about banding
comprehensive means all of the children in the same building being taught at a level appropriate for them
(so some kids do 13 GCSEs, some do 5 and an apprenticeship)

Once all subjects are optional : after 16 in other words, then it makes sense to have facilities appropriate to choices

and as University is neither compulsory nor chosen by all, it has nothing to do with discussions of segregating children at age 11 according to very narrow criteria.

OP
You have still not answered the question about what sort of schools the kids your system rejects should go to.

Well I have given those a quick scan and I can see nothing in either one which supports this:

I would add to that post that demographically speaking the kids who went to grammar schools as a whole were those whose parents would have been able to pay for secondary education prior to 1944

(I've just used cut and paste not sure of any other way to do it)

Which is after all part of your attack on my comment (which was taken out of context since I was clearly using an example to demonstrate the problem with making sweeping generalisations i.e. all of this all always and never stuff!)

I like the selecting by height idea one of mine was in a school play the other day and they stood him on a chair, he didn't seem to mind a jot but I think I would have been happier if all the speaking parts needed chairs in order to be seen by the audience.

So if people are anti selection are they in favour of completely comprehensive education (by that I mean no banding of any sort) do we get rid of elite universities too?

I won't pretend I know the answer but I hate the current 'selection by parental income' in my previous area

I am not in favour but how do most people view selection by school opinion?

(I have work to do so won't be back on here until later-sorry)

The statistics are in part here
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04252.pdf
and here
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01398.pdf

Oh yes of course prior to grammar schools girls were all nuclear scientists and brain surgeons and it was their introduction that saw them all barefoot and tied to the kitchen sink. Girls have been failed by the 'system' for far longer and in a far greater way than by grammar schools.
do you have any evidence to support your statement that in 1946 most new entrants to grammar schools were from families that could afford fees?

Mexican that is surely a reflection of your area though? when they were first started I am sure that there were many working class children whose lives were changed by their schooling, where in laws lived I get the impression most of their school was working class the doctors/lawyers kids were all privately educated. (off topic but isn't the rise of the 'middle class' a relatively recent thing wasn't it previously working vs upper split mainly along income lines with a smaller middle and little interclass mobility)

the problem is that people learn how to use the system to their advantage and do so, 'twas ever thus and presumably always will be must have some relation to Darwinism and survival of the fittest lol!

I have no idea how to get around it, my cousin lives in part of the states where they have random school admissions (akin to a lottery I guess) and the kids are bussed across the city at the age of 5 to achieve that

their solution

they moved

'problem' is that you will never agree to get those who care about their kids education to willingly send their kids to a school they perceive is not good enough without complaining or trying to do something about it.

agoodinnings The thing is that school (the wrong school?) can turn perfectly nice DC into something else entirely. I don't believe a school is solely responsible for "loutish" children, parents can have an impact as can pre-teen and teenage hormones.

The thing is that school (the wrong school?) can turn perfectly nice DC into something else entirely. I was very surprised to see a quite frankly loutish schoolboy in town with his girlfriend looking very respectable. He was a bottom set kid who was quite possibly living down to his expectations in school :(

smokepole I think it is important to mention that until fairly recently Belvedere and Liverpool College were both private schools. They are now publicly funded academies which seek to maintain their private school ethos with tax payers funding it. The effect of changing to academies will not yet be seen in results as the full set of academy-only entrants has yet to filter through the school. It is misleading therefore to include Belvedere as one of the top state schools in my opinion.

Additionally, as per my previous post, Blue Coat's results are obviously impressive but not significantly different from the non-selective schools in South Liverpool when you look at the outcomes for high attainers. Considering the difference in demographics, I'm not sure that does support the argument for selection.

OP I think you are being given a rather hard time. I also think this kind of thing happens in London more than in the rest of the uk and is increasingly going. Also few people outside of London seem to be aware of the levels of complexity of selection in London, particularly faith schools. I went to a successful catholic secondary in London in the late 90s/early nouguties that did all the things you mentioned. Similar situation to oratory in fact.

I think this would have been great discussion amount London-based parents about 15 years ago!

As for my grammar school, even though we were as poor as church mice, we were culturally middle class. There was one boy in my year of 200 students with a working class accent and my did it sound peculiar in that setting.

Yes, I know Tally. I was one of the first to respond.