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

Lavolcan if as molio ascertains super selectives need a "different" kind of teacher this doesn't necessarily mean that by being different they are superior to those who teach in comprehensive schools. Maybe they just have a different skill set. I just don't have a problem with teachers specialising in the super bright or those with learning difficulties, some want to work in comps in deprived area other nice rural comps with primarily MC children. All I'm sure require different skills. What is your problem with each area requiring different teachers?

I'm not sure anyone has said that the super bright can only be educated to their full potential by attending super selectives (admittedly I haven't reread the whole thread) and as was point our by talkin up thread I accept that my DS could achieve the same exam results at our local 6th form college. But for me education is not just exam results. But if you are lucky enough to have a choice either due to you location or bank balance without a doubt many children enjoy the kind of learning environment that some super selectives can provide.

Where I have taken issue with molio is when she makes statements about comprehensives e.g. they [superselectives] do need a different sort of teacher to the sort who might be fine for a comp.

How anyone can generalise about the 3 500 (+) odd comprehensives is beyond me, so it's impossible to say what sort of teacher might be fine for a comprehensive.

There is IMO an argument for the really highly able, plus sportspeople, musicians, artists etc. to be educated differently, but I am not sure that the remaining grammar schools are dealing with this top 1% or so. (If so, why would we see anguished threads on MN for Tiffin tutors, and children being tutored since year 4?)

happygardening As you clearly don't support the concept I did state my position on this as being:

I believe the argument for selective schools is stronger where there is a surplus of schools places. However, in areas where there is a shortage of places, I really do have to question how this can ever really be justified. without a doubt, in this situation, children with lower academic abilities are loosing out. I don't believe this says that I am against super selectives.

I have questioned specific points raised in support of them. This is based purely on the fact that I do not agree that a bright child can only be educated to their full potential by attending such a school.

My experience of super selectives is purely based on discussions with friends who have DCs attending one of them.

mum you have repeatedly challenged molio about her experience of comprehensive education and I agree your manner is rather abrasive. I'm curious to know how much experience you have of super selective education? As you clearly don't support the concept I'm interested to know if you've sent your DC's to a super selective school in either sectors.
It may suit your prejudices to state that those who need a super selective to thrive are likely to have employment issues but as I said this has not been my experience in fact the complete opposite. We know many who've been educated at super selectives (primarily in the independent sector) all bar one who is on the spectrum, they work in a wide variety of occupations and have been successful by all measures.
I struggle to understand why you are so black and white about comprehensive versus super selective education, surely as each child is an individual with a different personality most parents (assuming they have a choice) choose the school that they feel best suits their child.

I agree that Molio's family are off the scale (they would fascinate advocates of eugenics) and particularly the 'first of Oxford medicine' and human rights lawyer would have likely have achieved that from reasonable comprehensive as well superselective since they obviously also have loads of drive.
However that does n't negate the point that they probably got more out of the superselective environment, even if only more friends who were on the same trajectory.

frogs I was going to let sleeping dogs lie but since you raise this again . As I said before, it is a trivial point in the discussion but due to my almost 'OCD' tendencies for facts it me
TalkinP. ...... Latin Lang, Latin Lit ....... all GCSE/iGCSE (the Latins)
'Inaccuracy' as you cannot get 2 separate iGCSEs from Latin. Talkin then changed the exam board from iGCSE a couple of times finishing with OCR (GCSE not iGCSE).
I know OCR do a short and full GCSE course but that surely is not two full GCSEs as the short course leads onto the full course. However I admit there may be some subtlety that I am missing.

I referred to 'intellectual dishonesty' but that was relating to previous tactics of 'ducking and diving' to reinforce an argument rather than look at the evidence.

I struggle to find any common ground amongst all the opposing views and complexities on these repeating threads (being the state, private, grammar debate threads).

Is there any? (apart from finding me objectionable)

Molio I know dc often seem quite normal to parents whatever they are like, but top in year at Oxford medicine is likely to be off the bell curve by most definitions.

summerends the 'double counting' latin GCSE was introduced about 3 or 4 years ago by one exam board (at least) in recognition that Latin as it was previously was judged significantly harder than other subjects, so not really dishonest.

TalkinPeace your dd's schools results are a fair way removed from those of a typical comp, so whether or not they stack up against the results of a selective school, it's not right to use them to justify the comprehensive system. If you had had to have sent your dd to your closest one, you may have had a more realistic view of them.

Molio Oh ffs. At 22.44pm you 'seriously questioned the employment prospects' of super selective kids - No I questioned the employment prospects of kids who could only reach their full academic potential if they were in a "super selective" academic environment.

Molio - Mum I'm calling it a day Fair enough

Oh ffs. At 22.44pm you 'seriously questioned the employment prospects' of super selective kids.

I'm off. Goodnight :)

Mum I'm calling it a day because the thread is becoming increasingly incoherent but seriously, why on earth are you so strident about my having to be a guru on comps?!

All of my DC went to a super selective school. None went to a comp.

summerends I also agree.

Molio In the same way that it's ridiculous to suggest that super selective kids have a tougher time generally finding a job please feel free to show me any post that suggested this... Now if you have evidence to suggest that they are more successful on an employment level (not entry level BTW), perhaps you would care to share...

Mum in answer to your post of 23.23pm I'd refer you to my post of 23.17pm. Admittedly that's only two concrete examples but it is nevertheless two out of two children in my family who are post graduate and in the job market so a 100% strike rate at a relatively reasonable level. Obviously I could come up with hundreds more examples simply amongst their two school cohorts, but it would be ridiculous to do so. In the same way that it's ridiculous to suggest that super selective kids have a tougher time generally finding a job. Just follow the logic through from more super selective kids getting to top/ RG unis to top/ RG graduates securing the lion's share of competitive jobs. It's just a no brainer. Also, hard work and decency allied to significant ability still probably gives a head start over hard work and decency allied to limited ability, however unfair that may be.

Molio feel free to share you experiences of non selective schools that your heaps of DC attended BTW

summerends I fully agree :-)

Molioyou are still making no sense to me: a) I have heaps of DC, not one and I restrict what I say to what I have first hand knowledge about ...I've already said my knowledge is concentrated on super selective schools, high ability students. Nothing you have posted shows any knowledge of comps.

Children learn most from each other. Some bright children like being top dogs at less selective schools, others enjoy the buzz of being challenged by brighter friends and having their experiences widened by them. Some of the brighter ones understandably thrive when most of their school or college or university peer group think at their speed and therefore the teaching is adapted to that. It does n't mean that they can't do well in a mixed work environment in later life, just that they got the most out of their education for their needs.

Mum in answer to your post of 23.21pm I'd refer you to your previous post of 21.09pm in which you claim 'the only knowledge I demonstrate is of the one my DC attends':

a) I have heaps of DC, not one and
b) I haven't referred to any one particular school anywhere on this thread.

happygardening the vast majority are decent hard working individual I suspect this had more to do with their success than the fact they went to a super selective school.

Your right in a way mum although he makes this comment having observed DS1 experience at a "high achieving" comprehensive.

The point I was trying to make is that you may 'question the employment prospects"of an individual whose relied heavily on an exclusive super selective environment but as I clearly demonstrated it's not been and never has been an issue for my DH. We used used to know many from the same school the vast majority are decent hard working individual and we know now others from similar environments this applies to them.

Molio I don't think the employment stats for alumni of super selectives bear out what you say Mum. Feel free to give examples to demonstrate your point.

Molio MumTrying I'm trying to understand your posts tbh. Well we have one thing in common then: "I've glanced back and can't see where I've said anything about a specific school, let alone the one my children attend or attended. All my comments are general and nowhere do I reference a particular school". Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what prompted you to post this?

happygardening He knows what a difference it makes. How does he know what a difference it made? He knows only what he experienced and that he is happy with the outcome. He has no way of knowing that things would have been better for him if he had gone another route unless he had experienced the other route.

I have no problem with people being happy with what they have experienced. I do have a problem with people who blindly insist that their way is best for other people.