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

There are some sweeping statements on here

e.g. 'all forms of selection disadvantage working class kids'

simply not true in every case husbands parents were as working class as they come miners kids from Scotland, no one in the family had been to University EVER both got into grammar school and their lives were totally different as a result.

South London faith schools selecting in the way you describe, is simply not true in every case, I thought it was widely recognised that some do exactly the opposite they are full of lower socioeconomic group immigrant kids whose parents have aspirations or expectations for them, my former local community schools however were full of the offspring of Eurobankers renting houses that cost way over 1,000000.

the trouble is people feel very passionately about this subject and that tends to be reflected in their statements

what really needs to be found is a way not to manipulate the system, I offer you Shirley Williams whose daughter went to Godolphin and Latymer after she moved into the area at just the right time, Blair and the lib dem guy with kids at the Oratory, Cameron whose daughter was/is at a primary school (State Faith) which teaches Latin, Diane Abbott whose son was sent to the City of London school (private)

I am sure they didn't feel that selection by bank balance disadvantaged their childen (although I accept they don't really represent the working class)

so how can you avoid selection ban private schools and make all admissions a lottery with widespread bussing?

In my opinion a school needs to either be highly selective of pupils or highly selective of teachers.

As the parent of a child who will be sitting the Blue Coat exam next week, I sincerely hope the OP is not representative of the people who currently teach there.

Interestingly, although Blue Coat is the only wholly selective school in Liverpool, it's outcomes for high attainers are not dramatically different than for other secondary schools in South Liverpool, which considering the other schools have a larger proportion of children with SEN or qualifying for FSM makes Blue Coat look less impressive. I mean they take in the cream of the crop but don't have a significantly different impact on the high attainers. I wonder therefore if the teaching and learning standards are actually as good as the results imply or whether they are just reaping the rewards of a gifted intake each year?

I'm hoping to God that you didn't teach literary at your highly selective schools OP!

Good point, Massa, selection at 10 or 11 would be idiotic and take no account of the way a child grows as she or he matures.

Also, inter-school basketball matches could not be fought on a level playing field, and parents would look at the overall sports league tables and assume that the Tall schools were better without realizing the results were based on intake.

Think of the families who moved to an area where the '110cm plus' schools were excellent but then their DC failed to eat enough Ready Brek and just missed the mark . They would be stuffed.

Hmmmm, I smell shiiiiite.

But the tallest 10 yos don't necessarily become the tallest 14 yos! Nobody would be so ridiculous as to think that selection in Y6 is a good idea, would they?

I mean the tall getting taller, of course.

BoffinMum , I think there is a lot to be said for educating by height . We could save a lot of money by building schools that don't waste all that unused ceiling space above the heads of short arses. Teachers would have to allocated accordingly , of course.

I am a bit worried about the long term impact though . Many people develop long term networks during their school years that influence the marriages they make and the kids they have. We could end up with a polarity between the short getting shorter and the tall getting shorter .

Although that has never happened in any other selection process such as public school v state, so maybe I am over thinking it.

Some children might not benefit from an orderly education, really? Who are those? and who are the not so decent kids?

Happy retirement!

Random allocation at a well regarded Liverpool Catholic college.
Random my foot...

Selector
I fully accept that you think how it worked for you was ok
as was much that went on in 1970's London.
and I do not believe you are linked to the poison OP spouted.

I can only be glad that OP is no longer a teacher.
I have to hope they leave education for ever.
I hope that they have not damaged too many children during their career.

My view is very clear : if you want selection by god, gonads or tutors, go pay for it
as such things should have no place in the state funded systen
and yes, geography will kick in, but those with a good grasp of demographic cartography will realise that such things as are most things are cyclical

Apart from those forms of selection that actively favour kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, I guess, like the small number of schools that are starting to put kids in receipt of the pupil premium higher up their criteria. I suspect that's not something you'd approve of, though...

I thankgodyouveretired as well.

All forms of selection disadvantage working class kids, 'decent' or otherwise.

What is a decent child Op?
I am curious as to what criteria you set to judge decency.

You are spouting such rubbish OP, please don't include us all in your inane ramblings. This the evidence {of chaos} is apparent to any teacher who has worked in the profession for as many years as I have is SOOOOOO far from the truth it's difficult to know where to start.

We should line up all the kids nationally in order of height, and then allocate them to schools accordingly. Tall kids in one school, etc, down to smallest kids in another.

""

You can apologise for that spurious accusation whenever you like, NerfHerder. No rush.

OP, have you retired to a nice place under a bridge?

Parental income.
That's the worst form of selection under the sun.

How is it achieved?
Glossy prospectuses, expensive uniforms, fees, requests to set up standing orders donating money to the school, laying on expensive school trips, interviews, expensive PTA events, specialising in languages or music, that kind of thing. It all has an insidious effect on the pupil body and then you weed out all the kids that might actually take a bit of effort to teach.

She's mentioned a number of schools who have abolished interviews, because they have already been banned as a means of selection in state schools.

Worst form of selection: Religion

Has the OP mentioned the Oratory school enough times yet?

I teach in a fabulous comprehensive school and my children will be going there too. I couldn't be happier with the education they will receive and the fact that there are at least two, possibly four schools we could happily send them to in the local area if we so wished.

From one long standing teacher to another, op, you seem laughably ignorant of the picture across the country.

thankgodyoureretired
Got an opinion piece to write, have you?

fewer not less
rigourous?

"decent kids", "the right stuff"?
How judgemental are you, and what gives you the right to judge children?
Children have no control whatsoever over the circumstances to which they're born.