Why do people get so worked up about selection in schools?

[Itisnoteasybeingdifferent]

Genuine question.
We all know selection is part of life. Last week there was a conversation about Emma Watson for getting her breasts out. But she is only famous because she was selected to play Hermonie. No one knows all the other hopefuls who were rejected. Likewise, if you apply for a job and get nowhere, it is because the employer selected someone else to do the job. Selection is a real part of life.

Yet when it comes to school we seem to think the opposite should apply.

Yes, we have the same stats, that is, those from state schools tend to do better overall. And, as you said, I expect that is in no small part due to motivation. You'll have perhaps 2-4 contact hours per week per module on my course, and if you don't work independently (as in, try to treat it like having an actual full-time job) you usually won't do especially well.

Because, SATs test are more about general knowledge, and just churning out stuff they've done at school, I think?

Well if they're crap at tests and learning stuff at school why would they be going to a special school with the expected outcome that they would do well in tests?

Niether are crap at tests. You said they were getting the same at Sats presumably level 5s and 6s in old money.

A third of Sats is Spag which isn't hard to tutor or cram for,much of the new 11+ is vocabulary and comprehension which are far harder. Without looking at the data it is impossible to hypothesise. I would say though given the massive comp/vocabulary demands in the new Sats now it will be interesting to compare data when it is available.The maths is a far more similar level to the 11+ now. The need for coveting the curriculum before the 11+ isn't there so much now. Last year was the first year and year 6s had to cover the whole curriculum in a tiny time frame. As each year goes by kids sitting the 11+ should be more and more prepared for it in school as regards maths.

Don't forget there are 8 months between the 11+ and Sats too.

I live in a largely affluent area that has grammar schools and so selection at age 11.

Among some parents there is definitely a 'speculate to accumulate' approach - pay for your child to go to a private primary school in the hope that this buying of privilege will result in the child getting into the grammar school (and so saving on secondary school private fees as it were).

There is no way you can convince be that this 'selection' is fair in any way.

But hoards get in from state primaries many certainly not the best. My dc's was RI for much of their time there. On a national level only 13% come from private schools.

It'snotfair - Just because life is largely unfair doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to balance things out in a more equitable manner, particularly when it comes to the fundamentals such as education.

Grammar schools do absolutely nothing to enhance social mobility, they are stuffed full of children, many of whom have been to private prep schools and whose parents are members of the sharp elbowed middle classes.

They are tutored to within an inch of their lives, the cost of which excludes many able children from less well off families.

This is backed up by the fact that only around 7% of grammar school children are eligible for free school meals, as compared to the national average which is about 18%. Evidence that these schools are largely the preserve of middle class kids.

Theresa May should be investing this money she has earmarked for grammars in improving existing schools for all children, not just a small elite. And this is not about bringing everyone down to the same lowest common denominator, but raising standards of education and opportunities for all.

The middle classes you speak of are huge and most are far from wealthy.

Only 13% nationally of privately educated kids in grammars. This myth that only privately educated over tutored get in puts off the very families you speak of.

Nothing wrong with being sharp elbowed. Plenty of sharp elbows hoovering up the best comp places.

Measures are being put into place to redress the balance- pp kids being given precedence,buses paid for pp kids,new tests....

Grammars get less not more money.

I went to a girls grammar. It suited me down to the ground. I was very glad to have the opportunity to learn at a higher level, surrounded by similar people. I am sure I achieved more than I would have done at a comprehensive. Not everyone took the test where I lived and some people did not want to go to my school. I did not have tutoring to get in and neither did any of my friends from my primary school. I am grateful I had the opportunity to go to a grammar school. Where I live now there are none and people are very prejudiced against them.

BUT I do not believe in the current climate of severe education cuts and budget problems that their creation should be prioritised over funding state schools. I HATE what the current government has done to education. I should know, I'm a teacher

On a national level only 13% come from private schools.

That is pretty high I would say.... Especially as most people ime don't do it that way round. If you can't afford both prep and secondary then you are generally better paying for secondary if DC don't get into Grammar. Prep is no guarantee and if you don't get into Grammar then what? At least that's the case round here where the fee paying secondary schools are easier to get into than Grammar

"Well if they're crap at tests and learning stuff at school why would they be going to a special school with the expected outcome that they would do well in tests?"

I think you're flailing a little bit noble. I didn't say anything about them 'being crap at tests and learning stuff' as you well know...

What I meant, was that you can get 2 children who do roughly equally well in the SATs test in Yr 6. And, yet one of them might have a higher IQ, and therefore easily grasp the questions in an IQ/11+ test, which the other would puzzle over for much longer (because their IQ is only average).

I saw this very clearly in my DD2. In Yr 5 a handful of them were given separate lessons to prep them for Level 6 Maths. Yet, DD2 was the only one who could just glance at DD1's old 11+ test papers and just get it, straight away. The others had to puzzle over it.

I went to a selective school and it served me well. I was naturally academic, loved to learn, and liked working in traditional ways (working individually, writing a lot, paying attention for long periods, etc.) I really thrived in that environment.

However my problem with selection is the comprehensive schools didn't really seem to offer any viable alternative for people who didn't thrive academically. Academic intelligence was still seen as king and other forms of (perfectly equal and important) intelligence such as practical intelligence, emotional intelligence, were seen as secondary. Vocational education was under-developed and didn't carry the same prestige as the academic subjects.

Until the government stop measuring academic success as the sole measure of the value of a person and their education, truly comprehensive education that offers something to everybody will never be possible.

they are stuffed full of children, many of whom have been to private prep schools

Well, stats show that it's actually only 13%. So just a little 1 in 10...hardly 'stuffed full' is it

They are tutored to within an inch of their lives

Our DDs had a weekly 50 minute session with a tutor, followed by roughly 45 mins of homework per week. Sooooo, just over an hour and a half per week...not a vast amount of time, is it? And this amount of time seems pretty much standard around here, and among my friends and acquaintances.

This is backed up by the fact that only around 7% of grammar school children are eligible for free school meals, as compared to the national average which is about 18%. Evidence that these schools are largely the preserve of middle class kids

Err, coming from a MC background doesn't necessarily = wealth. I know plenty of families around here, from MC backgrounds who are really struggling to make ends meet e.g. vicar's wife working extra hours in local shop, and driving round in a 13 year old Renault. Her family are nowhere near as affluent as our local self employed electrician with his Range Rover.

and driving round in a 13 year old Renault. Her family are nowhere near as affluent as our local self employed electrician with his Range Rover

PMSL at the evaluation of individual financial position based on cars. Bit off topic though.

Selection at 11 is wrong because you are effectively saying to 70% of kids "you are crap, we will give you a second-class education, spend half the money per head on you and consign you to the scrap heap at age 11" - because that is what happened under the old system (my mum spent much of her teaching career teaching in secondary moderns, they were under-funded, the children were told from the outset they were failures).

My parents were actually fans of the grammar system because they were examples of that rare animal, the working class kid who used it as their route out of poverty. But while it benefited a tiny minority, it screwed a massively larger proportion of kids.

I want good education for everyone, not a selected few. My son is not so many years off hitting 11 plus age, and I just think of him opening that envelope and being told he's failed and the whole of the rest of his life is screwed - at age 11 - because he has dyslexia and there's no way in hell he'd pass an exam like that.

MaQueen The 11+ is not a very good at selecting high IQ children. And IQ is a much debated construct anyway.... so if it's about finding raw ability irrespective of social background it fails... The best test we have is the Weschler, you can't 'tutor' for it but it's expensive to administer (needs a trained professional, usually psychologist) and even that is open to criticism (see e whole construct of IQ). Plus you don't need special schools for sucess, just good schools with great teaching and setting within according to ability...

This is a good thread - thanks OP.

I detest all form of selection and most forms of competition where children's education is concerned. I do think that 13% is a lot when you consider the number of children in private education (less than 7% of the population I think) so prep school kids are over-represented. Clearly grammar funding is impacted on by their more middle class school intake and the fact that they have lower numbers of pupil premium children. If they redressed the balance they'd get more money - simple really!

I'm really lucky that I'm the product of a comprehensive school. My parents chose to send me to a school in a neighbouring authority to keep me out of the grammar system. I would have failed the 11+. I didn't really knuckle down academically until I was 15. I have two degrees and a professional qualification. Had I been consigned at 11 to the local (really poor) secondary mod there is no way I would be where I am now.

I'm also lucky that although DS's school is cramming him for SATS he wanted our local (academically not great, pastoral care brilliant) high school as his first choice so I really don't give a flying fig how he does in his SATS and there's no pressure to try and get him into a grammar.

It's sad that kids are labelled based on academic ability at such a young age. Once that label has been applied it's really hard to shake off. I spent 18 months in "remedial" maths. It was character building but hard to move on from that label. None of the teaching staff would have bet on one of that class becoming a doctor. They would have hoped for plumbers and artisan bakers (MC romantic notion of what to do with the academically less able) but expected career criminals - it was a tough class!

That said, I do find it funny that schools pretend set groupings aren't about ability and we pretend to believe this. At DS's school it's planets - Saturn (clever kids), Mars (thick kids) etc.

We should be offering the best education to all children and not assuming at 11 that they're going to become a plumber because they don't seem academically inclined.

We live in a grammar area of east Anglia, I think the boys grammar has a much more prestigious reputation than the girls. My dd is in y4 and is receiving extra lessons in her state primary, not sure if this is because they think she'd be a good candidate for 11+ or just fulfilling a protocol to stretch g+t children. Many parents are put off the 11+ as they don't want to waste years of dc's childhood on tutoring. Our city has very good comps, most of them have at least an ofsted good rating so it's no great tragedy if your dc doesn't get into grammar.

11 is too young to be written off as not deserving of a good education.

That's true, but this is truer: nobody should be written off as not deserving of a good education. Which is what a grammar/secondary modern system does.

It's true that for the most exceptionally able, a comprehensive can't meet needs, any more than it can for those whose disabilities mean they can't access the curriculum in mainstream even with appropriate support. For that reason I think there should be a single grammar per county, which selects only kids likely to be genuinely gifted - not just very able. And those kids should be selected initially via the SATS, which should have a supposedly non-coachable element without a planned ceiling.. and any child found to have been coached would would forfeit any grammar place at once, and any coach would be fined in the same way someone cheating at sports would be. It's an unfair advantage in accessing tax-funded resources, and at the moment, kids who aren't coached have a massive disadvantage, which entrenches the existing class bias. Why should we all pay for that? Where's the public benefit?

A super-selective trying to serve only the startlingly able would need to have a flexible approach, within reason, to numbers, so interviews and even an ed psych assessment should be made for the borderline cases (many will be glaringly obvious) to see if the child is genuinely in need of a place, and not more than capable of thriving in a good comprehensive. It should be seen as a special school for kids with truly remarkable potential. Because they aren't catered for in the current state system, in many cases, and can end up totally disenchanted and disruptive. Plenty never achieve at their actual potential, and that's a loss to the country as well as to them. We have special schools for those who can't access the curriculum at one end - seems a shame not to at the other. (Also worth pointing out that some kids will have overlap - you can have disabilities in some areas and gifts in others, and the additional support would be even more valuable to those kids, perhaps). A school with a few hundred pupils per county - a truly super-selective - would not impact the funding or overall talent pool of comprehensives, and wouldn't label any kid who didn't attend as thick.

At the moment, grammars cater to the carefully coached, fairly bright upper-middle classes - those who can afford private school but don't have to, and those who can't but would like to. Endless data proves it. That's just a private school on state money. I don't see any benefit to the country as a whole, and in fact data tends to support the idea that they discourage social mobility, not the opposite. The free school meals statistics show how few poor children attend grammars. It's a tiny proportion.

Chance of rain,
I must express two sentiments, First a recprocal thank you for your well thought out comments.. Second, a very fundamental disagreement.

As I said in my OP, life is about selection. It is certainly not "fair" but it is real. I feel we do children no favours if we give them an education where selection is removed because it is uncomfortable for those who fail. Wherefore the childs first experience outside school when they try to get a job? How does such a child fare once exposed to the reality of life where you get nothing for not winning?

That being said, I am not convinced our system does a good job!

I remember years ago a parent in Ripon banging on about how he wanted the area to retain the 11+ examination so that his daughter could go to the grammar school, about how selection at 11+ was fair, bright children shouldn't be held back by having to rub shoulders with dim ones, the grammar school system was perfect for those chosen to attend such schools, the 11+ was a sensitive and fair system for choosing such children etc., etc., etc. The interviewer, Libby Purvis, asked him what he would do if his daughter didn't pass the 11+? Without missing a beat he said "I would send her to a private school".

"But if the 11+ is a fair system for choosing the right kind of school for your daughter to attend, why won't you accept its result and send her to the secondary modern school it has said she is suitable for?"

Answer came there none.

Er, there are lots of ways children can compete and develop resilience and be prepared for a selective / competitive environment without labelling them as deserving of a less aspirational form of education aged 10!

'Do them a disservice' by giving them all the widest chance of educational attainment????

I take it that you got the place in the selective school you wanted op? Me too but there's no need to lord it over others!

Comps during the 90s weren't great in my opinion and having suffered one. There was a culture of low aspiration and the school was delighted if we got into a mediocre university to study media studies.
Many kids went on to do badly as a result and many were much much brighter than me. Fortunately my parents sorted me out.
However it has left me nervous for my child. As a result I am prep paying and then grammar or private.
I really think there should be much much more streaming in comps.

38Cody Was that necessary?

There is at DD's school. I think the problem is that people are comparing comps in areas with grammar schools with comps where there aren't.
We, thankfully, don't have grammar schools round here, and the 2 nearest comps are good. DD's comp achieved an 82% pass rate in 5 GCSEs including maths and English last year. They also have an excellent 6th form. I doubt that DD would have done any better at a grammar school, given that she got mostly As and A*s.