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.

No, that was deliberately misleading giraffe, you took it out of context implying it meant something it didn't. Plus you certainly were deliberately misleading about the 'best' schools.

Okay fair enough noble, this source is a little bit shaky though. Nevertheless, my point was about voters liking grammar schools.

Greening is not actually on the record as saying those things.

So just to check here:

Everyone on this thread who is supporting grammar schools would be quite happy if their child didn't pass the 11+ and thus went on to the other option instead. Even if they just missed out by 1 mark? And happy to do this without tutoring too, because after all natural ability is what is being looked for.

They wouldn't appeal or go private? Because there will always be kids who just miss out, who potentially then get a very different experience because of how they did in a few tests when they were 10 years old.

Waiting for the replies of 'of course that would be OK' from the pro-grammar people ...

No, that was deliberately misleading giraffe, you took it out of context implying it meant something it didn't.

Go on, how else can you spin 'not an overwhelming flood of negativity'? Why would someone arguing for grammar schools to grammar school heads say that if they could have said 'really positive responses'?

Plus you certainly were deliberately misleading about the 'best' schools.

No, I don't think so.
arkonline.org/news/king-solomon-academy-recognised-one-top-ten-schools-country

"King Solomon Academy, which is located near Edgware Road in London, had their first set of GCSE results this summer with 93% of students getting 5 A*-C grades including English and maths, well above the most recent national average of 59%.

Two-fifths of students got the top A* or A grades, outstripping the performance of many top private schools in England. 75% of students also passed the EBacc – a measure of the key academic subjects at GCSE."

Please explain how that doesn't make KSA one of the best schools in the country?

Greening is not actually on the record as saying those things.

Are you suggesting that the Grammar School Heads Association, who met with Greening in order to discuss plans for expanding grammar schools lied when they recorded that she said that?

And happy to do this without tutoring too, because after all natural ability is what is being looked for.

As a parent who's children will not qualify for the lower entry mark because we earn too much, we would probably tutor our children - although I don't think we would hire one, we would just do it ourselves.

Having a lower pass mark for poor children assumes that all of the parents who are not eligible are tutoring their children, so we would need to do this to put our DC on equal footing.

We currently have a very good religious state school near us that I currently intend to send my children too (they will definitely get in). I would not send them to the local state comp as it is so bad so its kind of an irrelevant question to me. We don't have grammar schools in our area currently.

Similar question back to you, if you had grammar schools in your area, would you put your children in for the test? Would you hire tutor, would you tutor them yourself?

We had strict rule that if DD or DS did not pass the 11+ even by one mark then we would not appeal. The only circumstance for which this would of been reassessed is if something awful like a death in the immediate family had occurred immediately prior to the exam. I know that it is a moot point given the fact that they did pass but this was a genuine stand point.

DD was not happy about this but DS was ok about attending his second preference school so was more agreeable.

I am an appeal panel member for my local authority and have seen first hand how determined some parents can be in refusing to accept that their child did not pass.

We don't have the income to pay for private education so that was never a considered option.

Are you suggesting that the Grammar School Heads Association, who met with Greening in order to discuss plans for expanding grammar schools lied when they recorded that she said that?

Nobody is actually on record as saying that she said that. Sometimes you say somebody said something but you misinterpret the tone, or miss out parts of the quote. She could have said "the consultation on increasing selection in England had not been “an overwhelming flood of negativity” in fact it has been really positive." It's not really worth speculating on, not long to wait.

As i've said a couple of times, my point was around voters, not headteachers who might be about to lose the top academic 10% of their new students each year.

"Having a lower pass mark for poor children assumes that all of the parents who are not eligible are tutoring their children, so we would need to do this to put our DC on equal footing"

No it doesn't. Having a lower pass mark for poor children recognizes the fact that poverty is one of the biggest indicators of educational under achievement in this country. That is true practically from birth. Most disadvantaged children start school at a lower level than better off ones. And that continues all the way through, unless strenuous measures are taken to support them.

The lower pass mark is to stop middle class parents paying their way into the 11+. As we saw above there is a 20 point difference in results in the 11+ between poor and rich students who have the same SATs results (although the difference between poor and rich in general is much, much larger probably do to inherited natural talent and other factors).

Tutoring does happen and this system is trying to level the playing field. If they're going to give my children a higher pass mark why wouldn't I tutor them? Wouldn't you?

You presented that quote as 'the best thing Greening could say about feedback'. In fact she said a lot more positive things but you have presented an out of context non-direct quote fed via a hostile source.

And yes, you were misleading about the best schools. Only one of the schools you quoted is in the top ten.

Re tutoring, it's certainly not out of reach for all but the very poorest parents. One of us would stick a few nights a week in behind a bar or weekends if that's what was needed. But we could never afford to move to a good school area. Tutoring is a bit of a red herring because it's available to far more parents than expensive housing is.

If we had grammars in our area I wouldn't have put my DDs in as neither would pass. However, being in a comp enabled DD1 to be top set for French whilst in a much lower set for English. It enabled her to do 2 languages for GCSE which I suspect (but don't know for certain) is harder for non grammar schools in areas like Bucks & Kent.

However, that is beside the point really. Obviously if you live in a grammar area you have to work within that system, and that includes putting a child in for the 11+ if suitable. But that still doesn't make the grammar system better.

It does make me sad though to read on MN about the parents who tutor / go private for primary in order to get to grammar, but if they don't get grammar they then go private for secondary too. It's like having your cake and eating it. After all, those are the parents who could probably make quite a big difference to the (results in) the non-grammars by being supportive parents in and out of school.

One of us would stick a few nights a week in behind a bar or weekends if that's what was needed

... If you are a two parent household (so the other can do childcare) , and have the skills needed to work behind a bar (e.g. mental maths and spoken English). And you aren't stuck in a wheelchair or other disability that makes it hard. And you aren't exhausted from your manual day time job.

^cecily why should I chuck my children to the wolves just because they have the misfortune not to have well off parents?

Why should I send my children there? Why don't you tell wealthy parents they should be sending their kids to a shitty school? It's amazing the amount of people who are prepared to sacrifice somebody else's kid for their socialist ideals while they send their kid to a good school in a 'naice' area.^

My DC didn't go to a good school in a naice area, but that is by the by. I am not asking you to send your child to the school that you have dismissed as 'our shitty local comp', but upthread you came up with a whole list of types of children who should by spared from attending this school while also decrying the fact that only 10% get A or A passes. Surely you can see that they could only improve their A or A rate by taking more bright children capable of achieving these levels.

Presumably the intake (in terms of prior ability) is different from the Catholic school your children will attend the Catholic school is less stratified by class. If not, then what is the Catholic school doing that makes it so good?

Religious schools tend to do better than 'average' because they too have a form of selection (by religion).

So the parents have to be aware of the rules in advance.
They have to be willing and able to be organised to go to church (other places of worship are available too) regularly for the required length of time, and get required evidence.

Obviously many people at religious schools would be practicing their religion anyway to meet the rules. But others quite happily 'find faith' for the year or 2 in order to meet the criteria. By definition, this latter group of families are more organised and motivated - just the kind of families to have children who will do well in school.

In contrast, the family with faith who don't realise the rules, and maybe visit sick relatives, or who worship at a non-parish church (maybe due to family connections) or whatever, can find themselves disadvantaged when they discover too late that their pattern of worship isn't good enough for the higher faith categories.

Nobody is actually on record as saying that she said that

Grammar School Heads Association Newsletter as a record of what was discussed at the meeting see page 5:
[http://schoolsweek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GSHA_Newsletter_SPRING_2017.pdf]]

Is that a 'hostile source' Bill, by the way? All this quibbling over something quite straightforward in an attempt to make me out as 'deliberately misleading' is getting pretty tedious.

Only one of the schools you quoted is in the top ten
As a measure of how good a school is, is it really fair to choose attainment over progress when grammar schools deliberately select the highest attainers they can get? Rather stacking the cards in their favour on that measure don't you think?

Religious schools tend to do better than 'average' because they too have a form of selection (by religion).

This ^

Our local religious school that gets 90% A-C Ebacc requires 10 years of weekly attendance* at a particular denomination of church (you are allowed a certain number of holidays). The selects for a particular type of family that has stability and parents who can plan 10 years in advance and keep up that commitment. We were church attenders before we had children, but we have been careful to not miss many weeks because we are aware of the rules.

That is certainly true of some religious schools, Teen. Selection by the back door where the parents have to jump through the selection hoops rather than the children. It is not the case all religious schools and BillSykes implied that the Catholic school in her area was open to all Catholics, regardless of level of participation.

"One of us would stick a few nights a week in behind a bar or weekends if that's what was needed"

And if you knew what was necessary. And if you had the energy, the time and the inclination.

Incidentally, suggesting that sending your children to the schools many of us send our children to is "throwing them to the wolves" is perhaps not the most tactful remark you could have made.

Our local religious school that gets 90% A*-C Ebacc requires 10 years of weekly attendance ...

10 Years, blimey, that is really upping the ante. Also 10 years of being recorded as having attended rather than just attending!

10 years !!!

Wow.

Yep Cecily, it's pretty intense. The primary school requires active involvement in the church too, you need a position of authority, PCC or Warden etc! It's an election in the church to get these positions so you really need to know the whole community and be known as someone who gets things done - it's very competitive. The primary school is just as good as the secondary.

Oh right. So because some poor parents don't want or know they need to tutor their children all of them should get a shitty education.

And yes, children are thrown to the wolves education wise when they're sent to rotten schools where they stand no chance of gaining a decent education. Their parents probably have little choice, but the system does throw them to the wolves.

So where do you send your children bertrand? I suspect probably not a rotten northern comp?

School's with any sort of selection criteria tend to do better because of the families they attract. As a poster once said, a school which required parents to learn to juggle would get better results than one next door that didn't. And would provide lots of jobs for out of work circus performers. Ironically, probably most of the tutors would be the children of middle class festival going parents........