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

jimjams the fact that you think teachers of A levels only need a basic grasp of the curriculum for any ability cohort, let alone high ability, tells me your opinion here is hardly well thought out.

Bloody phone

But it's blindingly obvious that a dull middle of the road teacher from a dull middle of the road uni with a dull middle of the road degree won't be able to stretch or challenge the brightest

Do you have any idea what you sound like?

jimjams imputing the idea of 'vast intellect' is absurd. No-one suggest kids at super selectives have 'vast intellects'. My kids certainly don't. But these kids are bright to extremely bright and they do need stretching. If the purpose was purely to knock out an A level or four then of course that could be done with relative ease. But it's blindingly obvious that a dull middle of the road teacher from a dull middle of the road uni with a dull middle of the road degree won't be able to stretch or challenge the brightest. Simply sticking to the syllabus would most likely bore these kids to tears in any event. As I said before, attempting to define 'best' in terms of a teacher is fatuous. All credit to those who can teach all abilities but there are significantly more teachers out there in the pool who can teach the middle and lower end of the ability range well or even superbly but aren't up to teaching the very top end - not sufficiently at least. It's not an issue at KS3 especially, but it is a bit of an issue at KS4 and a significant issue at KS5. You yourself are in a minority in the profession being an Oxford grad; I don't think you can reasonably generalise - you're looking at it from a very singular perspective.

Iirc LaVolcan there is a big table each year which gives you value added scores according to low middle or high achievers (according to SATS results). Iirc - I'll check again now we're back into thinking about transition to secondary - the local comp had a better value added score for the high achievers as well (when compared to the grammar school ds2 is at). Having looked at them again recently I am convinced this is because of the very individual approach they take with each child.

For value added, when you compare a genuine comprehensive with a grammar you are not comparing like with like - you would need to take the tops sets of the comprehensive so that you are matching the intakes. What would be the alternative? Take the SATS results on entry and match the two cohorts? This has its problems because some primary schools are known to game the system.

Well imo value added is probably also higher at the local comp because from what I've observed the teachers put in more effort (as I said my middle son is at the grammar).

I'm an Oxbridge graduate, have taught across the spectrum from very able to those who are struggling. It is far easier to teach classes of more able children than those who are struggling. IMO the really good teachers are needed at the schools with very mixed abilities. A levels aren't rocket science. Pupils at superselectives don't require special teachers - just someone with a basic grasp of the curriculum. To suggest these kids require some sort of specialist teacher to nurture their vast intellect and ensure the poor creatures don't get bored is ridiculous.

An no chips on my shoulder, we've used state primary, private primary, special & grammar schools to date, and are considering grammar, comprehensive and free for ds3 for secondary (trekking around them all).

La Volcan , I am looking to move from the Dover area so have been looking at different entry requirements for sixth from grammar schools. The requirements vary hugely, even when comparing two schools that might have similar average A level grades. Some grammar schools will admit with just 5C grades at GCSE others require 54 points, the equivalent of 6 A and 2 B grades. The average though seems to be 4 or 5 B grades , that being the minimum requirement to study at AS level (What happens when they Go?). Southend High (Girls ) have not released their Sixth Form Prospectus for next year ,Probably because they have not got a clue about entry requirements.

Value added is far more likely to be higher in a comp because of the relatively high baseline at which kids start in grammars in Y7.

I don't think that anyone has denied that some comprehensives are better than others, and I think I have said that just calling a school a comprehensive doesn't necessarily make it one.

The response then needs to be, 'how do we raise the standards of the poorer ones', not 'there are always children who buck the trend' - which rather confirms my opinion, stated above, that when an example of a good comprehensive is given, it's dismissed as an aberration.

TheWordFactory But that is a whole ball park away from the plethora of posters who deny the problem at all. could the mind set of "a bright child will do well where ever they go" be the stumbling block? (I do not share this view BTW)

word I'm interested that highly selective universities, the Sutton trust and the government recognise that the highest ability children are poorly served within the comprehensive model.
We have at various times in my DS's school career looked at the non selective state sector, in four different LEA's, every time we've been openly advised by teachers not to move my DS. In fact our reason for moving him to a boarding prep was because we were categorically told by the governors of the nice primary school he was at was that they had no interest in stretching and challenging him. When I state this on here I'm that this is a one off or perhaps a 4 off and that most non selective state schools can stretch and challenge those of highest ability.
I suppose the problem lies in the definition of "high ability". My DS is generally in 0.2% of the population but for math he's right off the bell curve. Who makes the decision that child A is high ability and child B is very bright? Will parents try and tutor to hoping to show their DC is high ability? Are there enough high ability children in an area to form a school particularly in rural areas? Not all high ability children will want to go to a school geared up for their needs. Perhaps separate units attached to non selective schools are needed.
Part of the problem is that high ability is associated in many peoples minds with better, IME of being married to one and having high ability DS both whom I personally adore and knowing well three or four with a very high ability it doesn't necessarily make you a better person, a different person sometimes yes but not better. High ability is also associated in the minds of many parents with better job outcomes, as I've said up thread most we know who have a high ability have done well in their careers but I accept that does not apply to all, also sadly not all have form successful long term relationships or made good parents. Although of course this applies to all abilities.
We are obsessed in the country with academic results this seems to be the only measure we have to work out how successful our children are, we fail to look at health, emotional development, and good old fashioned plain decency, and tolerance of others. This morning on the radio we hear about what a decent man Alan Henning was, his enormous generosity to others who let's face it he had nothing in common with, this is a quality I would like to see more off, it's importance being ranked by parents and schools as of equal value as exam results etc.

mum that is a very fair point to raise and worth a discussion.

The balance between providing appropriate education for the highest ability, as opposed to the majority. Saying actually we need to be pragmatic here.

But that is a whole ball park away from the plethora of posters who deny the problem at all.

TheWordFactory What surprises me though, is how this manifests itself as a complete denial that there is any issue of whether the highest ability children are well served within it. In some instances, better serving the needs of the highest ability children has resulted in disadvantaging others an example of this as I have previously stated:

I live in an area where the brightest get to choose from 7 schools (8 if you include the super selective). Those children with a lower academic ability have no choice, there is one school or wait and see where you end up.

I corrected 'fine for a comp' almost instantly, as soon as the stupidity of the phrasing was pointed out. So sloppy yes but patronising no, and I've explained clearly what I mean about different skills. There's probably not much mileage left there for attack.

I'm agreeing with LaVolcan. What really impressed me about the local comp (visited during a school day last week with ds3) was that they seemed to take a very individual approach to each child. - So I see no reason why high achievers shouldn't benefit from that. My middle son's grammar however doesn't show that much evidence of an individual approach. I have no issues with the grammar school btw, ds2 is very happy there - but I was mega impressed by the comprehensive teachers and the support they offer all students.

The value added score for the comp is far higher as well btw (and this comp have a very mixed intake).

Because these examples don't show us what is happening on a macro level.

There will always be children who buck the trend.

However, that doesn't prove the trend doesn't exist.

If the comprehensive system were able to overcome this problem then there wouldn't be such a lot of outreach work going on. There wouldn't be the introduction of measures from OFSTED to try to address this problem. There wouldn't be research.

And parents of very able children wouldn't seek out selection education.

What surprises me though, is how this manifests itself as a complete denial that there is any issue of whether the highest ability children are well served within it.

And yet, when I give examples of highly able children who have been well served by their comprehensives schools, this is always dismissed as an aberration - leafy, middle class intake etc. etc.

LaVolcan results of schools like Tiffin, considering the number of children they select from, are n't that brilliant by A level results (looking at the Guardian table of A / A* grades. Actually nor are some of the other superselectives mentioned above. So either the selection is wrong or they are not teaching to potential or they are focussing more on other attributes.
Stating the obvious but superselection or, even more in the case of some Kent grammars -selection, is not enough to create a good environment for the bright.

lavolcan

I can see you feel very strongly and wish to defend the comprehensive model.

What surprises me though, is how this manifests itself as a complete denial that there is any issue of whether the highest ability children are well served within it.

You see the discussion of this problem as a critisism, yet all the educationalists I know see it more as an observation of an obvious and inherent problem. Not a problem of anyone's making, but a problem none the less.

The concern has been rumbling for as long as I can remember and is recognised by every highly selective university I know.

It was also recognised by the Sutton Trust and by the government.

How we deal with the problem is an ongoing discussion and there will be lots of different ideas, but the flat refusal to engage by those fervently in support of comprehensive education is odd. I don't know any other sphere of life where people aren't constantly seeking to improve their services and systems by first identifying problems and then seeking to solve them.

My middle son is at a grammar, and looking around schools again now for ds3, have to say I'm very impressed by the teachers as the local comprehensive. At my son's grammar they're pretty much left to get on with it themselves, the teachers at the local comp seem much more engaged, and available to the students.

So yes 'fine for a comp' very patronising (and I don't even have a child at a comp).

Word I missed that - but no, it's not acceptable.

But my stance is taking issue with those who think that all comprehensives are the same, and can't challenge able children. When an example is given, this is put down as an aberration.

I haven't the faintest idea.
At my DS's super selective you require a minimum of 6 A's at IGCSE to be allowed to continue into the 6th form. The first draft of the "A list" (potential Oxbridge candidates) has just been released the 50 names on it have all achieved 8 or more A*s at IGCSE. I know that 6 A's is the minimum requirement for many other super selectives in the independent sector some require higher even higher grades.
Perhaps it's fair to say there are super selectives and super selectives?
I agree that the comment fine for a comp is a pretty patronising thing to say all children what ever their ability and in both sectors need teachers who are top quality inspiring and dedicated.

lavolcan molio corrected what she meant. I notice you didn't take umbrage with the poster who said any old teacher who wasn't asleep is fine for bright kids.

happy If that is what she had said, I wouldn't have had a problem. It's the 'might be fine for a comp' that I took her to task for, when she has no knowledge of comprehensives.

As an aside: I was just looking up the 6th form entrance requirements for two schools.

8 GCSEs grades A* – C, two of which must be English Language and Mathematics; at least 4 should be Grade B and all should be from full GCSE courses. These should be achieved in a single sitting.

Students taking four AS subjects require 344 GCSE points in their highest 8 GCSEs (this equates to
an average of 4Bs and 4Cs or an average of 43 points). Students must have C grades or above in both GCSE English Language and GCSE Mathematics.

Please tell me, which is the superselective and which the comprehensive?