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

MumTrying I'm trying to understand your posts tbh. I've said repeatedly it's the super selective environment I know most about. Is that a problem? I'm not sure my experience of those is diminished because I know significantly less about comps.

I don't think the employment stats for alumni of super selectives bear out what you say Mum. Just reducing it to the personal for a moment, my eldest DD left uni to go straight onto a starting salary of £40k+, rising to £60k after two years hopefully and then sharply after that. Her next sibling down has gone straight into a fully funded PhD (not the same sort of financial reward, admittedly :)). Their peers have secured an array of amazingly interesting and varied jobs, with none that I can think of unemployed. But I bow to your superior knowledge..........

Is there any need to be so abrasive on these threads btw? .

Well mum my DH went went to a super selective and a selective prep he thrived in every way and believes in super selective education for the super bright. He knows what a difference it makes. He believes that the "no limits" ethos at his school is one of the things that has made him so good at what he does. In his working life he works with people from all back grounds, nationalities, classes, from some of the worlds richest to very junior staff with little skills bar pushing a broom around, he manages two with learning difficulties and he actively supported their applications for the jobs, he's also in the past encouraged his employer to take on offenders who often with very limited education, he has never had a days unemployment in 25 years and is respected by all.

Molio Mum 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. could you quote where I have stated this to be the case. So far the only reference to schools I have seen you make is "Super selective" which is where you experience seems to be and comprehensives which you seem woefully ignorant about. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise...

Molio I believe all the evidence shows that there's a place for super selectives because these students do better there than at comps, Unless you have access to a parallel universe, no evidence exists to demonstrate that the children who attend "super selectives" would have performed any differently had they been in any other academic environment.

What's more I seriously question the employment prospects of any individual that relies so heavily on a very specific, exclusive environment. i.e. offers exclusivity to those who attended "super selective schools", in order to perform at their highest potential.

Mum 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.

LaVolcan I corrected the omission there myself, a few posts up.

I restrict what I say to what I have first hand knowledge about but clearly anyone concerned with any aspect of education has to know a bit about the whole system. People on these threads or indeed anywhere in life can't have expert knowledge on everything and I've already said my knowledge is concentrated on super selective schools, high ability students and university admissions. Others may have the same or something different to contribute. That doesn't mean that what people do have to contribute is nonsense, simply because some other disaffected poster accuses them of not knowing everything. Not knowing everything is very different from knowing nothing.

TalkinPeace has been called up previously by another poster for citing her DH endlessly as though it's her own professional experience, and she didn't like her 'challenge' being met with figures which knocked it down. But the graceful thing at that point would have been to acknowledge that the top forty students in super selectives do seem to achieve significantly better than the top forty students at her DD's old school, not to get ratty about it.

I believe all the evidence shows that there's a place for super selectives because these students do better there than at comps, resources can be concentrated in a way they can't at all ability schools and there's a social and economic purpose to maximising the potential of high ability students too, which goes beyond individual experience, not that that isn't important too.

I'm not going to apologise for pursuing Talkin's challenge Mum. It's appropriate to counter a challenge if what's stated is patently not true.

Colchester Royal Grammar School (Super selective) sent 30 to Oxbridge this year, out of a cohort of 180 or so. The Comps around here with larger cohorts send 1 or 2.

I would agree that super-bright can be difficult - in the same way that educating a gifted musician/dancer/sportsperson can be difficult. I have seen this problem with a nephew who is a gifted musician. With the local school, the difficulty was fitting in his music; he tried a specialist music school, but had to board which didn't suit him, so is now being home educated - which seems to be OK.

But I am not sure that it's the wholly super-bright who are being talked about on this thread.

I think it can be hard to teach the super bright. Quickly bored and restless by nature. Attentions quickly wander if you fail to keep their interest. The super bright aren't perfect models of behaviour. My DH went to a very famous super selective weak teachers left quickly, he clearly remembers two who had no control of the class, the boys almost rioted at times, because they just didn't keep the pace of the lesson quick enough or were sufficiently interesting/challenging they both had some kind break down.
Of course the average or below average are equally as difficult, and those who can get better than expected grades from low achievers should be congratulated, it just takes different skills. Of course in the ideal world you want a teacher who can teach both and those in between as well but the reality is that not all can and teachers like most other professionals should be free to choose an area that suits and interests them and schools should utilise an individuals talents. What ever area an individual chooses doesn't make a better teacher.
I do think my DS could get the same grades in the state sector but having looked carefully at the state sector very carefully at various times in his education including very recently I come away with the same feeling; yes he could do as well but will he? My concern is always that as someone who does become bored very quickly and also as a rather restless person by nature if he were insufficiently challenged/interested Im not convinced he would be a model of behaviour in fact past experience has shown that he wouldn't be. Interestingly on our last careful look at state ed for him, the teacher also said "your going to be bored stiff here". One of the issues we found is that at our local well regarded 6 th form college classes are rarely streamed, so if he'd opted to do an MFL A level for example he would have been in a mixed ability class, where as currently for some of his Pre Us there are 4/5 sets so you are with others of the same ability. I know others won't agree but I personally think this is better. Of course some very bright don't mind and would thrive in a more mixed ability environment if your lucky enough to have choice it's about finding the right place for your individual DC.
Finally I know our fees are high talkin but they not (yet) 40k PA.

I would think that it was pretty obvious that I have some pretty solid knowledge tbh and very hard to point out where it's weak.

I asked you what you knew of Comprehensives. I don't think you have answered yet.

My knowledge is strongest of the old direct grant system Fine.

and the current system

I beg your pardon, but if you don't really know about the comprehensive system then I don't see how you can say you have solid knowledge.

Molio I would think that it was pretty obvious that I have some pretty solid knowledge tbh and very hard to point out where it's weak. Does everyone else on this thread agree with this statement?

MumTrying / LaVolcan
some people's posts are best largely ignored.
I should not have lost my temper the other night.
There are posters on this thread with points to add
and others who are just a weight on the space bar

Molio In fact the only knowledge you have demonstrated to me is that of the one school your DC attends... Oh and how to latch on to a challenge and never let it go...

Molio So where exactly do I indicate that my knowledge is 'extremely limited'? feel free to grace us with your knowledge of comp. schools as so far you have demonstrated none to me...

Molio I'm not sure I've made any generalizations about comprehensives have I, other than very obvious points?

That's far more easily done in a selective school than in an all ability school.

I would count that as a generalisation - I don't think it's obvious myself. With something like 3,500 comprehensives it can't be possible to generalise about what the school will or won't be able to do because there are just too many.

halftheway my dad arrived in this country with one suitcase of clothes and no money at all and even had to sell the suitcase to raise money. His grandchildren have the benefit of access to a good state education as I did too with direct grant. Don't make assumptions.

Oops. Meant to say current super selective system. Not current system.

halftheway
please read the full thread
as far as I can gather this thread has now become about analysing and dissecting the ways that more bright kids from all backgrounds can have the same opportunities

there can be no knee jerk because the data has so many nuances

Well that's interesting Mum........ How do you work out from what I say that I have ' extremely limited knowledge'? :) If you could add some substance to that it would be great. I would think that it was pretty obvious that I have some pretty solid knowledge tbh and very hard to point out where it's weak. My knowledge is strongest of the old direct grant system and the current system and of university entrance but 'extremely limited' on those three things would be pushing it a bit. This is direct knowledge too, not through a 'DH'. So where exactly do I indicate that my knowledge is 'extremely limited'?

It is good to see the might of the rich still holds sway. Examining the list of " super selective" with their oh so gifted and talented children it is not hard to see what privileged areas they come from.. what a silly thread too.. the hierarchy of completion .. heaven knows what the kids.. only made it to the third tier grammar.. what a disappointment
as to the discussion on the quality of teacher required to inspire such treasures. Any half awake teacher can stand in front a class of super clever kids can trot out a string of A* . The challenge is the other end ...the truly talented and outstanding teachers are standing in front of a class of children who barely scraped a 4c in their key stage 2 Sats, come from low income families were English is not always the first language and get them to succeed.
a "challenging" environment is not about behaviour it is about access to resources.

TalkinPeace excellent points.

Many people I know have selected private education for more than pure play grades.

No top academic performers have moved from my DCs primary school to private education. However all bar one have (out of four leavers so a small sample) moved because local primary state schools have fallen far short of nurturing interests in areas such as art etc.

smokepole
its an interesting game - and thank you for doing it : your elucidation has been greater than many
BUT
there are only 164 grammars and only in parts of the country.

Non selective schools will, by definition, get less kids into Top200 Unis
but I'm still really unclear whether the pupils at the grammars would have got into those Unis had they gone to non selective schools.

As HappyGardening was honest enough to state up thread, her DS would have got the same exam grades at a state school as he has at a £40k per year private : but he would have not have got the esoteric extras

Molio I think you would have a stronger augment if you knew what you were talking about. It is evident to me that your extremely limited knowledge is preventing you from presenting a viable stand point.

St Joseph's College I have just looked on Dept Of Education website Statistics It would be far to say a FSM rate of 1.2% in one of the poorest Cities in the United Kingdom is not very representative "IS IT".

It has a "Non Grammar" intake of 69% High 30% Middle 1% Low. It's A level average grade is C+ which is pretty much similar to DD2 DS grammars .

The direct grant thing did make a difference as it was based on the 11+. I was offered two direct grant places at two London schools and it was wholly down to the 11+ score. It would have been possible to get to lots of other London grammars with a far lower score. The pecking order now is based on results, rather than difficulty of obtaining a place, though of course there is and was a rough correlation, mostly.