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.

apologies.. I have to go out...
There are some very intersting and useful comments here

In some areas that stat will be far lower. Spreading myths that grammars are full of kids whose parents can afford private puts some families off.

Green a private primary goal will be to get dc to a level that can gain entry to grammar or private secondary. No obfuscation, hiding, that's it, the aim. However many state primary in grammar areas do now support their pupils to pass 11+ test. THEREFORE only dc with invested parents will be put forward for the exam. Hence fsm pupils are disadvantaged.

I think greenginger that the system is different in different areas. People can only speak for where they live and then to assume it's the same everywhere is wrong. Don't forget academies can set their own admission requirements anyway so that further complicates things in terms of any level of uniformity.

Spreading myths that grammars are full of kids whose parents can afford private puts some families off.

Here it isn't a myth.

Lavender I'm in N Ireland and in my experience people here are generally fine with the grammar school system. So much so that when the government tried to do away with it, the schools, with the support of parents, got together and brought in unregulated and unofficial testing instead which makes it all very complicated. My daughter will be sitting five separate exams to give her the choice of all the schools in our area. When it was regulated there were far fewer tests. The primary schools are not supposed to teach the skills for the tests, although I think that has recently changed. And I don't know very many families who go down the route of tutoring.

I think the difference here may be that even the non grammar schools are generally good. With the exception of a very few schools I've never heard of people being terrified that their child might end up at school X because it's so awful. Whereas from reading threads on mumsnet it sounds like entire areas having nothing but terrible schools is quite common in England?

I suspect many dp could only afford private prep not secondary but worth the money as goal of school is to get them in to the grammar.

I have three DC, DS goes to super selective grammar. He has mild Aspergers is highly intelligent nerd

DD1 went to outstanding comp. goes to uni next September, has 3 offers one from her first choice.

DD2 went to outstanding comp. did vocational training did not do GCSE, qualified as Level 3 hairdresser.

Three very different DC all suited.

Thats how it should be.

I suspect many dp could only afford private prep not secondary but worth the money as goal of school is to get them in to the grammar.

Well they are well off then aren't they? Bit like the ones who can't afford private prep as well as private secondary if their child doesn't achieve that years pass mark in the 11+.

I adore as I have said many pp kids don't even pass Sats let alone exceed so are nowhere near the level required to even sit the exam. Plenty of money is spent trying to get them through Sats.There are measures in place for the few who do exceed ie they are given preference and are going to have buses paid for.

Also other kids do count too you know. There is a big band just above pp and above that who are in no way rich and do access grammar schools. The idea that only those on pp and the super rich who can afford private count is seriously getting out of hand and damaging.

The new curriculum is far more demanding and pretty much 11+ level. Tutoring really isn't going to be needed particularly when the tutor proof test finds it's feet. Some families readily spend more on phones and gadgets than the cost of tutoring anyway.

The point being one school openly supports pupils to pass a test the other school the state of schools is actively working against supporting pupils take the test. So how on earth can anyone blame grammars or something called sharp elbowed parents when the lea chooses not to support all pupils who could take the test? The pupils whose parents are not interested what on earth are they supposed to do! Their parents don't help and thier school isn't helping them. Of course they are not getting in.

Because I don't think it is necessary. I'm fine with sets, and older children I am fine with being taught in different classes on a subject by subject basis. I don't see the necessity to send the top sets into a different building with a different uniform. Some people are across the board bright, but some shine in a few subjects or even 1 and I don't see how they are catered for in a grammar school system. I also think it's arrogant to think a bright person can only learn from other bright people. Sometimes the most challenging question comes from an average or below average child.

It does fascinate me how many people are pro setting and anti grammars.

Also other kids do count too you know. There is a big band just above pp and above that who are in no way rich and do access grammar schools. The idea that only those on pp and the super rich who can afford private count is seriously getting out of hand and damaging.

Couldn't agree more. It's a band of about 85% of the population......!

Because a lot of MNers have a vested interest in keeping the status quo where not very bright kids who have wealthy parents get to go to the best state schools. They don't care if poor but bright kids lose all their potential because they have to go to the shitty school in the poor area. And they dress it up as faux concern. It's actually because it benefits their kids. HTH.

I think the independent sector in London is the most stressful of all.

There are a few super-selective grammars in our area (south-west London). Children are tutored for years in verbal /non- verbal reasoning and the highest scorers will get the places. Fair or not, everyone knows the deal and it's as simple as that.

The independent schools are equally, if not more competitive - not only the "top"ones like St Paul's or Latymer Upper, but also the supposedly "broader intake" ones. It is usual for children to sit 5 different exams at 11 plus, not only in reasoning, but also in Maths and English. Even an excellent performance in the exam is no guarantee of a place if you don't have the personality or confidence to then get through the interview stage. It is perfectly possible for a child to do 5 separate exams and not be offered a place anywhere. It often feels like there are no schools for an academically average child because if schools can "cherry pick" they will.

State schools vary hugely and it can be more expensive to pay the stamp duty to move into an area with a good school, than to just stay out and pay school fees!

Those applying to Catholic schools may find that places are offered according to the age of the child when he/she was baptised. This is even more ridiculous.

At DS' school, 1,300 sat a 4 hour exam for 120 places. From this, 400 were interviewed, at which point the child's interests, self-confidence and personality are assessed as to whether they are a good "fit" for the school. A child could have performed excellently in the exam, but still not be offered a place based on the interview or previous school report.

This is why people in London may get worked up about school selection policies!

I do often think mumsnet forgets there is a life beyond London and the south east!

And surely pp kids should be given priority with entrance to the best comps and top sets.What about a complete lottery system.

There are huge advantages in being top set from the start at secondary. Very difficult to cover work of a set you are not in and move up.

Posters will happily buy their DC places in the catchments for the best primaries and secondaries. They then push their kids through primary to get good Sats results and the best set places at secondary paying little thought to those not so fortunate. Hypocrisy.

Why .
Because every piece of research shows that grammars do not work. Less children get 5A*s to C in regions with grammars.
The grammars do not represent the demographics of the catchment area.
Research shows the 'top' children at 11 are not necessarily the children who do well later in public exams.
Mainly though because nobody wants to see their child in a secondary modern, labelled a failure and given a second class education.
In truth, it is the just around average children who need the higher spec provision- genuinely bright children do well regardless of the school.

In my area, we have an opt in GS system. Approx one third of kids in the area go to these schools.

Because of the opt in system, many bright kids choose not to take the test and go to the comps. One of the comps in a deprived part of the area managed to get 15 students achieving all A's and A*'s at GCSE.

My oldest three all got in to GS. Some of their friends didn't pass and some chose not to sit the exam. They all did well at comps, including getting into medical school.

I tutored my dcs myself. I didn't over tutor them, but built up their confidence and taught them the exam techniques they would need to finish the papers in time.

Also, GSs do not suit everyone. DD3, who passed with nearly full marks, was really unhappy and left after a year. It just didn't suit her and she is now thriving at a local comp.

Many middle class people get arsey because their kids aren't of the level to pass the exam. Some people are lucky enough to be able to buy their way into o/s school catchments and so make out that their grammar dislike is a matter of principal when they'd be the first people to send their kids there if their only choices were all requires improvement. Only a few parents genuinely don't see the need for grammars & these people are usually giving their kids a comparable education by working with them at home etc.

Setting allows your child mobility and should reflect the effort they put in. Selection does not. I think at the moment many schools are struggling with this, as flight paths should reflect expected GCSE grade. No-one knows what the criteria is yet.

I disagree Billsykes. I disagree with taking the children from the most motivated families out of our local comprehensives. It has a negative impact on them. I don't want to put my DDs through coaching to probably not get into Grammar school anyway. It's a crappy system here and I wish it didn't exist. To the extent that we are thinking about moving.

Less children get 5As to C in regions with grammars.*

That's not true is it? N Ireland has consistently higher results across the whole population than England and Wales despite having the grammar school system.

OP; If you read one of the numerous threads you will see many detailed explanations as to why people do not believe that selective schools serve the education system well.

People get 'worked up' because they see money wasted on a chance in policy that had no evidence to support it, and many other reasons. Have you read those threads before getting worked up enough yourself to post this AIBU?