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

smokepole Thank you :-)

If you mean more than the grammars in all grammar areas Mum, then yes. Although there are ebbs and flows also some of the schools you're asking about push Oxbridge far more than others.

Mum. I had complied a list of the top 25 Grammar schools ( for no other other reason than being bored one night, from the Performance Statistics based on average A level points, iv'e Lost the Bloody piece of paper) 2 "Typical Comps" were on that list You've Guessed it those typical comps Watford Boys/Girls. Most of those 26 Super Selective schools were on that list , the only exceptions on the list were Altrincham Girls Grammar, Tunbridge Wells Girls grammar and the two Watford schools. I might be right, but "don't Sue me if I am slightly wrong with my placings.

The average 2013 A level grades from these schools went down from A, A- B+ Tunbridge Wells Grammar for instance was I think in 25th place with a B+ average A level grade and points of 252.4 . Queen Elizabeth's Barnet was no1 with A grade average and points of 271.4.

La Volcan Maybe "King Edwards" was a direct grant grammar school so was deemed more "exclusive" because it had fee paying pupils as well.

St joseph's College in Stoke , must have had to employ some of the tactics used by "Blue Coat in Liverpool" to stay selective because Stoke is a Labour Party Strong-hold.

St Olaves now won't be the same St Olaves as it was then though Talkin. Many of these schools have changed beyond all recognition, along with the political and educational landscape.

Absolutely agree LaVolcan, having a good degree in no way of itself cuts someone out to be a good teacher. But not being especially intellectually able or academically minded almost certainly does mean that that person isn't equipped to teach the very able adequately themselves, even though they might nonetheless be very capable teachers in the right setting.

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

Super selectives in theory are open to everyone though I get the point. But then all grammar areas are very restricted too. So arguably the whole ferocity on MN is pointless........... It's a shame really as the area where there seems to be most consensus is around super selectives. There's no political will to introduce a superselective system nationwide however. Parental will, but no political will.

Presumably there is some sort of 'pecking order'. There used to be in the old days i.e. the 50s and 60s in some places. In Sheffield for example, you could pass, or 'pass for King Edwards' which was deemed better than just passing. Where I lived there were only a boys and girls grammar school, so you either passed or failed. (Unless you were Catholic and could then choose the Catholic Grammar.)

smokepole Mum. Yes they do Significantly more than the selective schools?

I wouldn't know smokepole. There seem to be more than one category - the 11+ counties of Bucks, Kent and Lincs where the grammars are presumably not super-selective, although I dare say that some are better than others. Then there are the LEAs where there are the odd one or two grammars, like Lancs, Stoke on Trent. I know that the grammar in Stoke on Trent is Catholic, so its primary means of selection after the entrance test is religion which I suspect would exclude it from the super-selective category. And then there are your Tiffins, Newstead Woods, which I gather really are superselective.

TalkinPeace there are Superselectives whose sphere of influence includes other Grammars (Colchester / Southend ; anything in Kent)
so who gets first dibs on which kids? Interesting point. If the elevenplus web site is anything to go by, some parents actually opt for Watford Boys rather than QE Barnet due to the 6th form cull.

Mum. Yes they do .

smokepole Mum. Yeah probably right these are in the whole the biggest senders to Oxbridge. It wasn't a statement, it was a genuine question. Do all of these schools send a high number of students off to Oxbridge?

OK, now I'm really confused.
Accepting smokepole's list
there are Superselectives whose sphere of influence includes other Grammars (Colchester / Southend ; anything in Kent)
so who gets first dibs on which kids?
does the SS take the top, then the normal grammar the middle and the Sec mod the rump?

and I have to admit, having grown up in SE London, the idea of St Olaves being SuperSelective makes me chuckle

Though by every measure other than that La Volcan.

La Volcan Though by any over measure other than that ?.

Mum. Yeah probably right these are in the whole the biggest senders to Oxbridge. Although Altrincham Girls Grammar (In theory takes top 30% of ability range whether true ?) would be up there. This year I read they sent 19 to Oxbridge.

Kendrick school has 'designated areas' to deal with over subscription which is mostly Reading postcodes and some nearby ones which are within the orbit of Reading, so by that token it wouldn't be super-selective.

smokepole Here goes My attempt to list the Super Selectives: Do these all dominate the intake for Oxbridge in the state sector?

Here goes My attempt to list the Super Selectives:

King Edward Camp Hill Boys/Girls Handsworth Girls Birimingham
Stratford Upon Avon Grammar (Girls) King Edward Stratford (boys)
Wolverhampton Girls High , Chelmsford County High, Colchester County High
Colchester Royal Grammar, King Edward Chelmsford, The Judd Tonbridge (boys) Skinners Tunbridge Wells (boys) Tonbridge Grammar (girls) Kendrick Reading (girls) Reading School (boys) Colyton Grammar (mixed) Pate's Grammar Cheltenham (mixed) Henrietta Barnet (girls) Hampstead Garden Suburb Queen Elizabeth's Barnet (boys) St Olave's Orpington (boys), Wallington County High (Girls) Nonsuch County High (girls) Tiffin Girls/Boys Kingston Willson's School (boys) Sutton Grammar (Boys).

I make it 26/164 grammar schools are "Super Selective" grammar schools.

TalkinPeace Which of them are "super-selective"? I am so glad you asked this as I'm not entirely sure which schools are actually "super-selective".

I know QE Barnet is one, how many others are there?

Here is the list of Grammar schools.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_England
Which of them are "super-selective"?
by which it appears to mean no catchment limits, just fill the places from the top mark downwards

Utterly genuine question as not living near any of them I cannot tell the difference.

I would suspect that the teacher who only scrapes a 2:2 from a poorish university isn't likely to put themselves forward for 6th form work.

I know that you are not saying this Molio but it doesn't follow that those with good degrees make good teachers.

I do wonder where you are based Molio because a) you keep making generalisations about comprehensives, but I am not convinced that it is based on any more than hearsay, and b) superselectives are only available to a very very small number of children - almost all based in conurbations, making these arguments totally irrelevant for the majority.

Yes Amber you're right, it wasn't phrased carefully that's all. I simply mean exactly what you've said. Kids in super selectives need teachers who can stretch the most able, or they'll become monumentally bored and stop learning. It's entirely fatuous to try to label a teacher like that 'better' than one who has to manage challenging behaviour every day. The two requirements are different and the two skills are different. Of course in comps with similarly high ability students then those students need that same sort of teaching, but the logistics of a comp will make it very difficult to earmark those teachers purely for the most able groups. Up to a point it can work, but it's obviously far harder than if you have a pool of staff solely to teach very able students. Which is why I think super selectives make sense.

Mum perhaps you didn't see that a little way up the thread I said obviously there are those sorts of teachers in comps, but that as Word said, it's a question of effectively concentrating resources. The teachers will come through the same route as all teachers obviously, but they'll be particularly able themselves. It's hard to imagine that a teacher who scraped a 2.2 from a poor quality university is likely to be able to stretch 17 and 18 year olds with the ability to go to a top university and emerge with a very much better degree.

Amber I think it's about more than subject knowledge. It's about pedagogic skill as well.

I think (apologies for serial posting!) that this is a classic example of subject knowledge (which arguably you need to be better at to teach the most advanced kids) being prioritised over pedagogic skill (which arguably you need to be better at to teach across the ability range). It makes me think of the way that teaching undergraduates is a much more respected occupation, in this country and most others, than teaching pre-schoolers. I think that teaching young children well is much harder, but we don't value it as much because it's about teaching skill rather than subject knowledge.

LaVolcan Kent Sec Mod isn't one, whatever it calls itself. The same with Parmiters and the Watford Grammars, despite the fact that they feature up at the top of the comprehensive school league tables.

Molio when they're recruiting new staff, they do need a different sort of teacher to the sort who might be fine for a comp. Interesting, so where are the "Super Selective" teachers coming from? Are they all graduates fresh from "Super Selective" teacher training, University professors or industry leaders at the top of their field as evidently you seem to be of the opinion that non of them will have worked in a comp.

I agree, La Volcan. You could argue that teaching in a comprehensive school demands more of teachers than teaching in a selective school, as they need to be able to teach both the most and the least able. So actually it might make more sense to talk of some teachers being 'fine for a selective school', but that we need to encourage the very best teachers to work in comps.

I tended to think myself that the best teachers are those who could cope with any child of whatever ability.

I think for example of a music teacher we had once, who could legitimately boast that he could get any child to sing - a most welcome improvement on his predecessor, who couldn't even get her choir to sing in key.