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.

Interesting post trinity

Talk about flogging a dead horse

Your Emma Watson analogy doesn't work.
Stop trying to make fetch it happen.

Miss that is ridiculous. Do you know how expensive private schools are? There is no way in a million years we could afford private.

Families with kids on pp,just above and just above that use grammars. They are not all those just below those who can afford private and who can.

Most working middle class families struggle to pay mortgages let alone private school fees.

Some most grammars are struggling to keep afloat. They are as under resourced as any comp if not more.

But what if the selection could be fairer? For example, if the tests couldn't be prepared for with tutoring? Or if all primary schools prepared children?
Would that make it ok, or is it just too early an age to be deciding someone's entire future?
DH comes from the Netherlands, where they have four levels of secondary schooling. From what he tells me, selection is based both on tests taken at age 11 and a report from primary school, and there is the possibility of moving between schools later if it seems appropriate. He says that tutoring doesn't happen, but I'm not sure he knows really, as he's been living here for nearly 20 years!

No it isn't ridiculous greenginger. It depends where you are, round here that is the case. We have superselectives so 10% of those who sit get a place, many from prep schools. DC need to be coached, so pp will have no chance at all. A lot of DC who don't pass the exam go to independent school instead. It's probably different where 25% or whatever go to grammar rather than a tiny minority.

I understand NI has the GS system.

I wonder what Irish posters think of it?

I resent this constant peddling of the myth that grammar schools are 'better', including by Theresa May. Superficially, they get 'better' result, but of course they do! Some of the weakest teachers I know are tempted to work in private schools, and would be very attracted to a grammar school, should one open near us because they believe there will be no discipline issues. Some of the pupils at DH's school run rings around teachers.
And, to repeat a PP, grammar school suffer terribly from underfunding , so this idealised halcyon vision of small class sizes with inspired students hanging on every words of some gowned beak is far from the truth.
A non selective comp quite bear me has now advertised three times for a senior leader, presumably because it isn't a grammar school. I can't see how creating more grammar schools will solve any recruitment crisis. But perhaps Mrs May is happy to see non selective schools sink into the mire.

I don't like selection because, unlike setting in schools, selection is set in stone - you aren't tested and moved to a different school so someone who is better gets to move into your place 3 or 4 times a year.

True comprehensive education allows for a lot more mobility. Kids need to mix as well. Academic and sporty, well off and not so well off. It is not only the academic cream who need a push, a good education. Every child is entitled.

We have a super selective grammar here - pupils attend from a 70 mile radius. Less than 50% of the kids are local. Less than 2% are eligible for free school meals - (whilst 14% are at the local "comprehensive"), yet "social mobility" keeps being touted as a valid reason for taxpayers to keep funding it.

The trouble in my area is the massive gap between grammar schools and non grammar schools. Looking at the league table is pretty shocking. Within the city I live there are two grammar schools for boys, both with 100% A-C GCSE pass rate. The two girls grammar schools are in the high 90s. The top comp school has a 70% pass rate, with the rest of the schools ranging from 60-30%.

Both my kids passed the test and got into the grammar schools. However, this year especially, all the other children who didn't were not awarded ANY of their choices and have been given the worst school in the area (which is the closest to the primary school). Most of them have declined the places and have started appeals processes etc. It just seems like unless your child passes the grammar school test it's a complete lottery.

But life is not fair.. Children already know this, should the state rub their noses in the fact?

Selection to go to a different school doesnt allow for children to develop later, for children to be outstanding in one subject but need huge support in another. Grammar Schools benefit only the 'good across the board' student.

History has shown that Grammar Schools create secondary modern schools with low expectations, low outcomes and low ability to attract the best staff.

Creating larger schools by grouping together smaller secondary schools would allow far more setting across all subjects, improve facilities through economies of scale, allow for far greater differentiation in each subject, movement between sets. The list goes on.

Back when grammars were the norm, it was only those who passed the 11+ took o levels. Everyone else was pushed into secretarial, art or more manual paths. Now everyone takes the same gcses , why do the 'a' students need their own school?

I used to live in Shropshire and work in Telford.

Shockingly, the selective schools did best

I don't think selective schools are any better for a second.

What I have found is that children become what you say they are, usually. I have grave misgivings about grammar schools, but I don't see them as any worse than setting children based on ability at eleven. Therefore, I think they are worth a shot, if only because PP children appear to be guaranteed a certain number of places.

So if you believe life is inherently unfair OP, does it seem to you that we should just embrace that for our children, or should we as a society try to redress that balance?

If 'smarter' kids are siphoned off to schools where they get access to better facilities, higher expectations, etc, that's compounding the unfairness?

The kids left behind at schools where there's less investment get fewer opportunities, less experienced teachers, and so on, and so their horizons steadily diminish.

Toby Young was on Radio4 the other day arguing for more free schools because it's unfair to keep the more intelligent kids down by lumping them in with the proles. If he had any level of intelligence, he'd see that society overall is more successful if we commit to educating all of our children well, not just those who can afford it, live in the right postcode, or have been tutored up to the eyeballs.

But hey, suck it up right, snowflakes?

Basic in many areas pp are given priority,I think this is going to be rolled out everywhere. Considering over 60% of pp boys don't even get a pass at Sats let alone exceed frankly I think early years education for poorer children is a far bigger problem than middle class kids buying books. The exam is evolving and striving to be tutor proof.Buses are going to be paid for for pp kids.

Only a tiny proportion of the population can afford private so to say grammars are full of kids whose parents can afford private up is wrong. My DC know nobody from prep schools at their grammars. There are a few but they are tiny in numbers.

ps and 'lie's not fair' is a terrible argument and perpetuates the idea that some people deserve unfair treatment and that the 'luck' ones get better schools. The other need to suck it up because Life's Not Fair. It bloody well should be in a democratic society.

Grr

First grammars get less investment as they have less Sen and pp. Grammars are struggling.Less experienced teachers,rubbish. Where are your stats for that?

Greenginger2 I can assure you it is not rubbish!

In the GS area where dsis lives, the independent sector is largely unused and is mostly full of the kids who didn't get into grammar.

For example, DC1 goes to independent school, DC2 passes the test and goes to grammar. They could have afforded (just) the fees for both, but why bother?

The prep schools actively sell themselves as hot houses for the grammar test.

Glad it's not the case where you are but it is there. I'm not saying ALL grammar school
kids are possible private school, but a lot are.

Greenginger2 I also note that your children DO go to the grammar. Would you feel differently if they didn't I wonder?

In case people are interested:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/23/theresa-mays-grammar-school-claims-disproved-by-new-study

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8469

I didn't think that the idea of grammar schools was all that bad but if it's not actually helping with inequality (as far as i understand the whole point of originally setting them up) then it does seem to be wasted effort.

Nationally 13% from private preps are in grammars. Personally I think they should only be oped to kids from state primaries but yo say they are stuffed full of kids whose parents can afford private is wrong.

No as I believe you give things a punt and then make the best of what you've got. Passing wasn't a given,every parent knows their DC could not pass the same as the many more who don't get their first choice of comp which is far more widespread.

So I guess getting selected to go into top sets in secondary doesn't count or selected to go onto bottom sets? SELECTED to go into this or that uni or college then job.... I suppose opposite of all selection is pure communism... Jobs for all, no need to be good at your job its just yours, all wear same clothes, anything that's different is banned etc etc...

Why should people shange schools at age 11(ish). Why not at 14, or younger?

My kids go to a school where they all move at 13. Believe me, its no better - we are all tied up in knots of anxiety waiting to hear about places. I think my kids are like me - a bit of a late bloomer so people being selected before them now at 13, I don't think would necessarily be chosen before them at, say, 16. However it is what it is - they have to change at some point and life is that sometimes it suits some better than others.