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.

And the negative impact means that those who are just about able to afford private are more likely to do so. Unlike when I was young, we all went to the excellent local comprehensive and going private was rare. My parents could have sent me private if they'd wanted to. I wish we had that system here, but we don't unfortunately.

Secondary moderns are no more inherently failures or a second rate education than a child being in the second set is.

because it doesn't work?

My ex DH failed his 11 plus. His family was well-off and paid for a private school place rather than see him go to the local secondary modern (CSEs only, expected to leave at 16 and learn a trade).

He found his feet academically and became a research scientist with a PhD. If he had been in a different family this would not have happened.

Personal anecdote isn't data, of course, but there must be more like him.

There are plenty of comps in areas that have low motivated parents.

Instead of sitting the 11+ the motivated parents just buy into better areas thus leaving the less motivated parents in specific schools. Most towns have a less popular comp. The soaring numbers of parents who don't get their first choice comp bare this out.

Since when do motivated parents have to have a responsibility for less motivated parents?

Helpfully cross posted with lavendar above. A secondary modern limits your options as to future paths. You are unlikely to take appropriate subjects for access to university, for example. That door should not be closed at aged 11.

It is arbitrary at 11.

When there was national 11+ - kids and famillies felt stigmatised (at 11!) for not being good enough to get into the grammar- but only being a secondary modern child. And the grammar kids could look down on those who went to inferior schools.

It favours middle class kids who will be tutored to get in - so unfair to those who cant afford tuition. I was talking to my hairdresser the other day and she put her kid in for the exam for a highly selective school which she didnt get in to. Her child had no tuition as she thought it was just testing natural intelligence. The kids I know who went there were tutored from year 2 to get in!

Actually, when there was a national 11+ more girls than boys would have passed so they set the pass mark higher for girls to give equal numbers. So it would have been fairer if the schools were majoritively girls.

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.

NI is interesting and I wasnt aware of that. It is a relatively small place and I don't know much about the area so it's hard to know why that is.

lavender I am not a huge fan of setting but you must see that's silly. Students can (and do!) move between sets all the time, at the very least annually. Moving school is a whole different prospect.

I don't think the PM has ever mentioned secondary moderns, in fact, ahs she? However, we will all think of the non grammars as precisely that, even though, in theory, they will take the whole ability range.

Since when do motivated parents have to have a responsibility for less motivated parents?

For a comprehensive to work you need it to be exactly that comprehensive. Not the school of last resort for those who can't get in somewhere else. It's the children who we have responsibility for and as a country we will be much stronger economically with a well educated, skilled workforce. It isn't just about your DC doing better than everyone elses. Although obviously your own DC will always be first priority.

However, we will all think of the non grammars as precisely that, even though, in theory, they will take the whole ability range.

No we don't all think that at all.

Because research has shown unequivocally that it reduces social mobility, that you can't select reliably for ability anyway because middle class parents can prep children for the test and because there is a huge range in development at 11, students in secondary moderns do much worse than children in comprehensives and children in grammars do not do significantly better than children in good comprehensives. This has been shown by research and is why almost all educational experts oppose grammar schools.

Our ds, at age 11 was on an IEP at primary schooland really underachieving. Had he taken an 11+ i have no doubt he would have 'failed'. He went to our local comprehensive and suddenly shone, getting A and A* in 10 subjects. Now at 17, he is making applications to do Physics at Oxbridge. Doesn't that kind of thing show the glaring fault in the system?

The grammar system is outdated, particularly the idea that you only need a small proportion of people to receive education of a high standard. Modern society needs a much larger proportion of children to be well educated, including those who would opt for vocational training later.

Lavedarandrose ..Setting is very different though I don't see what's so interesting. It's subject by subject, often in the same room and done properly you can move sets at several points in the year., its rarely for everything as well...things like RE and Home economic being taught mixed ability. It's really easy to pick up a different worksheet or move tables. It's quite difficult to move schools because you turned out brighter or less bright than thought at 11. It also accommodates for people to be top set maths and bottom set English

setting and streaming often get mixed up on here. streaming is similar to grammar but in-school, setting is more mobile

Sets are often not very fluid.

How do you expect kids with poor Sats in lower sets to keep up with work the top sets are being pushed to do alongside their own and then pass assessments and tests without parental help or even with parental help?

If top sets are being pushed as much as they should be those in lower sets will find it very difficult to access them.

You don't move from bottom set to top set, no... but the fluidity is there between adjacent sets - or it certainly is in our secondary school. they mix it up after testing all the time.

The kids are all being pushed and challenged all the time, the extra work adds depth to each subject within the bounds of the curriculum, but not all kids in the top set will work to the same level, it is very pupil driven and differentiated.

Tutoring really isn't going to be needed particularly when the tutor proof test finds it's feet.

The 'tutor proof test' has been a complete failure and appears to favour private school kids over state school kids, especially those from ethnic minorities even more than previous tests.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils

"But life is not fair.. ..It never was and never will be."

Oh well, then, let's not even try to make it fair.
How about every family pays out of their own pocket for their children's education. Rich kids get 12 yrs of education & poor kids go down the mines or make shoes. That's fair, right?

Also, how about everyone pays for their own health care, paved roads & security services. I mean, life isn't fair, right? Everyone needs to earn their own way. If we don't think there's any point in trying to make things "fair', why stop at education.

There are plenty of children who might be top set for maths bottom set for English or vice versa. Grammar schools never ever have spaces for new students to move into (apart from at sixth form) and by the time people move up to the grammar they're usually very far behind.

It is very very early days. Last year was the first year in some areas. It's creators will surely continue to research to iron out issues.

Re ethnic minorities,there are high numbers in grammar schools. Culturally expectations are high and thus tutoring surely more prevalent which is surely what the new test is designed to rise above hence a reduction in numbers. The new test is big on vocabulary which ESL would falter over.

If this was the case and given ironing out disadvantages is being given a priority surely it could be easily rectified by giving points advantages to those with ESL in the same way the birthday months are calculated.

Not true Iam ours advertise and test repeatedly throughout the year.

Secondary moderns are no more inherently failures or a second rate education than a child being in the second set is.

What? In my area all teachers with high level degrees teach in grammars. There are some amazing teachers in the secondary moderns but in my local secondary modern there is no one in the maths department with a maths degree (most did sports science). A secondary modern student has no access to expertise at all.

I think something which hasnt been mentioned yet is how demotivating it is to be at the top end of secondary modern (cant go up) or the bottom end of grammar (cant fall down).

'Life is not fair.'

But it is supposed to be fair on kids. Not the small stuff, but the quality of education is too fundamental to dismiss inequality like this.