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

And yet more mansplaining .

There isn't any UK wide data on this. Certainly nothing from the usual suspects.

However, the universities involved in the widening access schemes (not just Oxbridge) mine the figures. Not me I should hasten to add.

And the trend seems to be, that there is no trend. Some areas which have a lot of selection, both state and private, still have high ability children in the remaining schools. Some areas with very little/non existent selection have very few high ability children. And vice versa.

There is no pattern.

So you really can't say that the existence of a super selective effects the remaining comps to a degree that there are no high ability children and thus there is no point the schools having an eye on highly selective universities.

Even North London which is of course a weird and wonderful place, doesn't have a predictable pattern. Some schools situated close to a selective school still have high numbers of high ability students. Some, a bit further away, don't. I would conjecture that this follows all manner of other patterns, including the immigrant population and where they come from.

Some colleagues feel that our energies and resources are best served by targeting those schools with reasonably high concentration of high ability pupils. Others feel that there will always be some high ability pupils in every school, so each is deserving of attention.

Interestingly, when we look back at the schools we visit, the reaction we receive from schools and our assessment of how much effort they're making does not correlate to the concentration of high ability pupils.

Imperial for example, have done some great outreach work, including some schools in the most deprived areas of London, with very low concentration of high ability students.

I too have built a great relationship with some schools who actively want to improve their systems of dealing with their high ability pupils. It's a complete pleasure doing business with them.

Or perhaps you just don't like counter-examples?

Molio

All I did was offer my direct knowledge.

You were the one that mentioned "to draw general conclusions from" - not me.

As far as I can tell, no one is extrapolating anything here - unless you are "drawing general conclusions" from my experience?

Somewhat patronising to suggest everyone other than you is conjecturing and extrapolating. Plenty of posters are in possession of knowledge and facts and are not speaking merely from anecdote.

Molio

I agree that North London is probably at one end of the "spectrum" but at least it's actual evidence rather than conjecture and extrapolation.

Does the country divide, like for everything else, into two:

1. London and other large cities; and
2. Anything outside large conurbations?

From posts I have read in the past it is more complex than that.

North London is probably the worst place in the country to draw general conclusions from Dad.

Talkin, you're trying to impose a scenario which doesn't exist. By definition a superselective can take in anyone entitled to education in this country who lives anywhere in the world. People may move if their child gets a place but not if it doesn't. Admittedly this is going to be a negligible number. But the point is that superselectives are different creatures from Kent type grammars and in an area with a superselective there just isn't a culture of failure amongst those at comps: it's not going to be the case that the 'top set' at all the comps all took the test and failed. Plenty won't have taken the test at all, for a myriad of reasons.

It does seem to me that some parents here are projecting. A child shouldn't need to feel a sense of failure at all. It will only feel a failure if the parents fail to handle the test outcome properly, and that's the parents' failure, not the child's.

Talkin

I don't think the data is collected (although clearly it exists somewhere)

I can add some colour for North London. Our local comps (two co-ed, secular, one co-ed, faith) have a very low intake of "high attainers" and have a very low output of AAA, AAB, ABB students at A-level, with GCSEs following that pattern too.

There are 4 or more grammars (2 co-ed and at least 2 single sex) out of borough that any bright kids is pushed towards - at least from our state primary and the other primaries I know around here. Add in the odd fee paying parent and the input into the local comps is predictably skewed towards mid-low attainers and lots of FSM.

I've been to four open days and had one-on-one meetings with the head and teachers at the local comp. They have a process to help high attainers and get a couple of students into RG unis each year, but they acknowledge that they don't have a cohort to justify the time, effort and resources needed to get the best out of those students who are bright but not highly self-motivated and also not enough to attract parents away from the grammars, independents and single sex faith schools.

All that said, the local comp is "outstanding" has great facilities and motivated teachers. They do a great job of adding value to 95% of their intake. But if you're a precious parent of a high attainer (me ) it's not likely to attract.

Tbh Talkin your scenario is a bit not quite like how it happens. You assume there's a neat 10% from each school in the 'sphere', but there won't be. Not for a super selective with a wide catchment, which is basically implied in the definition. So a false premise really.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question. I look forward to hearing the answer.

So Talkin, are you suggesting that the 11+ test is that accurate?

TheWordFactory
A genuine question that got rather lost in yesterday's posts
( and you are one of the most likely people in the country to have the data set )
Applicants to Oxbridge etc from Comps ....
is there a difference between comps that are within the sphere of influence of state only super selectives and those that are not?

Just that I wondered whether some of the problems you rightly identify when you visit schools could be down to :

• the top ten pupils knowing that the real top ten pupils are at another school
• the teachers knowing that their real "star pupils" are actually at another school
• the careers department knowing that the kids who are probable Top200 university candidates are not at their school
• the community being aware that there will never be a headline in the local paper about kid from our school goes to Oxford because all those kids have been creamed off to the SS school

Yes, the actual numbers extracted from any "comp" are small, but they are the "Aspirational" pupils.

Do you collect such information?
If not, would it be informative to do so?

As for aptitude tests, yes, they are becoming more and more wide spread.

mum as usual it's a balance.

You want the international talent, but ultimately you want to remain, where possible, somewhere that UK young people can come.

Also, there's the thorny question of cash. Overseas students pay top dollar for the places.

At Oxbridge, we get so many overseas applications that we can still afford to keep academic standards high and take the dosh. But at many other establishments, the overseas money is all that keeps them going and they will pretty much take anyone!

*TheWordFactory nit or perhaps mum (apologies) you aksed me yesterday why Oxbridge didn't base its offers on the aptitude tests, rather than grades, interview etc.

Well, I guess, we could say that about any university really.*

Fair enough, I didn't realise that many other Universities did aptitude tests prior to admission.

TheWordFactory Overseas applicants are different. Most universities have a quota. If universities are focused on tapping into the local academic potential why are they offering any places to overseas applicants (unless you are saying that they are legally required to have the quota)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are wrong to do so. My questions are based solely on the comment you made - "The squeeze on places gets worse and worse".

I'm more inclined to say the Universities are not victims, the applicants are the victims. The Universities get the same number of students no matter where they come from. However, the odds of an applicant getting a place at the University reduces in line with the increase in popularity of the University.

mum I think (though I'm prepared to be told otherwise) that it's European law, that applications from within the union have to be given exactly the same prority as UK nationals.

Overseas applicants are different. Most universities have a quota.

TheWordFactory People from all around the world want to study here. The squeeze on places gets worse and worse. Then perhaps they should operation a catchment system like many primary/secondary schools. I.e. priority to UK residents (locals), if places left over then anyone else. Of course that would never happen as it may affect their position in the league tables.

I suppose in many ways, here in the UK, universities are the vitims of their own success.

People from all around the world want to study here. The squeeze on places gets worse and worse.

mum I don't know the answer to that.
France certainly have a disproportionate amount of privately schooled pupils at their Grandes Ecoles.

That said, private schools in France are not the same as here in the UK. The fees are low and the social mix within them far greater.

amber I think contextualised offers are a recognition by universities (not just Oxbridge of course) that some young people have faced large barriers to academic achievement.

These barriers don't just concern the school they attended, though sometimes their school will be part and parcel of those barriers.

Occasionally, the contextualised offers will be low to reflect both the high level of those barriers and the high level of potential in a candidate.

But more often than not they won't be that low.

What Oxbridge and the other most selective universities say consistently is they will not make carte blanche lower offers that are little more than a formal acceptance that comprehensives don't offer an education that can compete. For one thing, for many comprehensives, that might not be true!

Similarly, except on rare occasions, universisties have consistently said that they will not accept certain inappropriate subject choices at GCSE and A level. The defficiency as I see it, is wholly in the poor advice given by the schools. It is not for universities to rectify that after the fact.

Similarly, if pupils take far too many GCSEs and dilute their results, that too is a failing in schools that we cannot be expected to make good.

TheWordFactory have similar problems with their private/selective/comp intakes Do the top universities in other countries display a similar mix i.e. private/selective/comp? Not sure if this is a silly question as I have no knowledge of education outside of this country (not too informed on the education system in this country either for that matter).

I said 'no thanks' to Oxbridge, in favour of a redbrick university. In retrospect I think Oxbridge would actually have suited me better, but at 18 I didn't think it was what I wanted from my university experience.

Word - yes, I think your views on selection are pretty consistent too, just differently consistent from mine!

It's interesting that views on the right % of ex-comprehensive pupils at Oxbridge still seem so subjective. I guess it comes down to the question, as you say, of whether you're looking for people who have already demonstrated they can hit the ground running, or people who have the aptitude to perform as well if not better, but have had obstacles in the way of their ability to prove that.

I'm still not convinced, though, by your sweeping statement about the 'deficiencies' of the comprehensive system (and surely Oxbridge isn't either, otherwise it should make contextualised offers to all students from comprehensives, which it quite rightly doesn't).

Word - Yes you're correct. There are universities who specialise in certain courses and are well known for that both in academia and in industry. However, I was having an argument discussion with DH some months ago, and DH was adamant that regardless, the brand of 'Oxbridge' covered any course of study in a way that other unis couldn't match. So for instance, Southampton is known for its engineering courses, but you went to Cambridge instead, no one will say 'ah! If only you'd gone to Southampton! (That may not be the best example)I don't know if this is actually true, we agreed to disagree.

But I think my initial question based on what you said would perhaps apply more to those universities that seem well below par with other universities.
Can they raise their standards or are they destined to always be considered third rate?

Lavolcan - well I think Oxbridge is definitely seen as the holy grail of education (in the UK) even if people don't aspire to it for a variety of reasons ( and those reasons are sometimes very complex, but not because they think they wont get a good education!) but people know worldwide, that if you are product of Oxbridge they are getting perhaps the best quality there is.

Indeed so, WordFactory I have heard students complaining that their highly pressured school is pushing them to apply for Oxbridge when they want something like Marine Biology at Bangor, and although Bangor has an excellent reputation for the subject, it's not on the school's radar.