Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

380 replies

Itisnoteasybeingdifferent · 12/03/2017 07:40

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.

OP posts:
GreenGinger2 · 12/03/2017 12:19

How is it racist?It would have to be premeditated and that is a huge accusation to make.Aside from that there are more numbers of ethnic minorities in grammars than other secondaries.

Only one area has looked at one year of data. Far too early to start making sweeping accusations.

And still nothing planned for the best comp places being given to the wealthiest top 20% of the country. By contrast you expect parents to just sit tight whilst they are priced out of the schools they want.

flyingwithwings · 12/03/2017 12:24

Trifle. In terms of grades what does 'functionally illiterate' mean.

I know what it means on a 'Macro' level . Internationally meaning someone can't read and write for instance.

However, on a U.K level which 'supposedly' has a literacy rate of 99%, what does it mean in practice.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 12:26

It's racist because it discriminates against ethnic minorities. It is not blind to race.

You didn't read my link did you? It's not one year of test data.

'A detailed analysis of the first year’s entry patterns, pass rates and applicants’ family backgrounds was covered by the Guardian at the time. It showed that children from local state primary schools had been less successful than in previous years, while a higher proportion of privately educated pupils had passed.

With two more years of test data and further evidence from CEM released under the Freedom of Information Act, the group claims the evidence against the test is stronger than ever. It shows a continuing strong bias against children from the most deprived postcodes (measured by the government’s income deprivation affecting children – IDACI).'

And
'“Buckinghamshire is a particularly good area in which to analyse how the 11-plus test works in practice,” says Hickman. “Unlike other selective areas in England, all the children at Buckinghamshire state primary schools are entered into the 11-plus exam unless their parents opt out.

“So if the test was resistant to coaching we should by now be seeing substantial narrowing of results between children from different backgrounds. The fact that the evidence shows the reverse raises uncomfortable questions about why a test that consistently selects on the basis of prior opportunity and social background is still allowed.”

Rafiq Raja, Muslim Parents Association in High Wycombe
Rafiq Raja of the Muslim Parents Association: ‘The 11-plus is a legalised form of discrimination.’
CEM has quietly withdrawn its brochure claiming that the test, which is believed to be worth £1m a year to the university, can assess “natural” ability. And Prof Robert Coe, director of CEM, says his researchers are still looking at why certain groups are not doing well in the test.

“The concept of ability is very problematic and comes with a lot of other baggage. I wouldn’t use the term ‘natural ability’ and we did remove it from our online material,” he says. Whatever system you use it is imprecise, there are false positives and negatives and probably more of those than people realise.

I've bolded the bit at the end. Whatever test you use, kids will be put in the wrong school, and that affects more kids than you think.

flyingwithwings · 12/03/2017 12:28

Racism would be the first thing the anti selection brigade would use if they could ! Thankfully Ethnic Minorities are over represented in Selective Schools.

This is because the children work harder and have parents who strive for their children far more than 'white' families with similar incomes or backgrounds.

GnomeDePlume · 12/03/2017 12:30

Bordersarethebest reasons for why students can do well at maths but poorly at English:

  • Dyslexia
  • English not first language
  • Poor home support for English

Boys at DS's Grammar all seemed to do pretty well across the board. that is because the selection process weeded out the 'spikier' students before they ever got there.

finagler · 12/03/2017 12:32

In answer to the OP - because I'd prefer my taxes to support all children equally.

flyingwithwings · 12/03/2017 12:33

If the Muslim Parents Association is moaning , why are the Chinese and other ethnic groups doing so well then if racism is involved ?

GreenGinger2 · 12/03/2017 12:34

How is it legalised discrimination when grammars have extremely high numbers of ethnic minorities?Confused

In trying to cut tutoring the fallout has been a fall in those with ESL.

It would be easily rectified in the same way as birth date is by giving extra points.

Until the results of every area are examined with previous data over a period of time and evidence of premidated intent is given I fail to see how you can accuse Durham of racism.Confused

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 12:36

I'm saying the test is racist, as it appears to discriminate against some ethnic minority groups. That is not the same as saying that the creators are racist Hmm

It is very easy to unintentionally create a test which is culturally biased.

Petronius16 · 12/03/2017 12:38

The problem I have with education, as a teacher, is that some people forget that there is a normal distribution of intelligence,

And that distribution is not an indicator of intelligence but indicates the results of individuals taking an IQ test. And that's quite different.

www.indy100.com/

As someone who started an 'academic' pathway a bit later than most and who taught 11+ classes as a result I'm quite certain there's no direct correlation between IQ tests and success.

I live in the town where I taught and am well aware of what happened to many of the kids.

In the early sixties, in the South West 35% of children taking the test went to grammar schools in Nottingham only 10%. Did that mean Nottingham children were less intelligent than those in the South West? Of course not, there weren't that many places in Nottingham.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 12:40

Dear god all these attempts to polish a turd.

The 11+ can be tutored for so they attempt to make a tutor-proof test. This discriminates against some ethnic minorities/ recent immigrants so lets give them more points to make up for it. It still discriminates against poor kids so lets reserve some places for them and so on and so on.

Until they have come up with a non-biased system which actually selects accurately by ability (which tbh is a complete non-starter), then how the fuck can anyone argue that this shitty system should be rolled out across the country?

hesterton · 12/03/2017 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BillSykesDog · 12/03/2017 12:47

Until they have come up with a non-biased system which actually selects accurately by ability (which tbh is a complete non-starter), then how the fuck can anyone argue that this shitty system should be rolled out across the country?

Shittier than a system which means selection for good schools is done on the basis of which parents can buy themselves into a good area? It might not be perfect but it's better than the current wealth based selection system where almost all poor children are condemned to a shitty education just because of their parents' income.

GreenGinger2 · 12/03/2017 12:47

And how can anybody champion a system that the wealthiest 20% dominate?

BillSykesDog · 12/03/2017 12:52

I prefer a system which at least gives the other 80% a chance. It might only be a 20% chance. But that is better than the 0% chance most have now.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 12:58

current wealth based selection system

There are many excellent comprehensives with fair or higher numbers of PP kids.

Can't say the same for grammars.

Spikeyball · 12/03/2017 12:59

It will still be 0% chance for most of them.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 12:59

But that is better than the 0% chance most have now

Can you name the schools with 0% PP kids please? What proportion are they of good/outstanding comprehensives?

BillSykesDog · 12/03/2017 13:13

I said 'most' of them. Okay so there will be the odd lucky person who's got a council flat in a nice area, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Plus PP is a very, very poor way of assessing if a pupil is actually poor. Unless you are stupid enough to think that just because your parents have never claimed out of work benefits or earned over £16k they're not poor and will be able to afford to move to a good school catchment, which would be ridiculous frankly.

But yes, most poor pupils live in poor school catchment areas and don't have the resources to change that. The fact that one or two might have had a rare stroke of luck based on whichever flat became free at the random time they were top of the list and bucked the trend doesn't change the fact that for most poor pupils there is 0% chance of them ever receiving a good education.

I don't really think the whims of the social housing system is a fair way to allocate schools.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 13:21

It's bizarre that you think that the only schools worth going to are in exceptionally wealthy areas. There are also good/outstanding schools in poor areas.

Perhaps they should be used as a model on how to help poor kids rather than suggesting that giving a bright poor kid a chance of getting into a grammar is the solution. What does that do for the bright poor kid who doesn't get in (the system is heavily weighted against them) and what does it do for the poor kids who never had a chance of passing the test? It makes things worse for them, because the existence of grammars affects schools for the worse in the surrounding areas.

BillSykesDog · 12/03/2017 13:29

Can you name some of these outstanding secondary schools in poor areas outside London? And non-religiously selective? Again, there may be an isolated case or two but it's certainly not the norm. Take my own city for example:

The outstanding secondary schools are Silverdale, Ecclesall; King Ecgbert, Dore; Tapton, Crosspool; and Notre Dame, Ranmoor.

The inadequate secondary schools are Chaucer, Parson Cross; Yewlands, Grenoside; Forge Valley Community School, Malin Bridge; and Outwood Academy City, Stradbroke Road.

All of the outstanding schools are in the affluent South and West of the city and all the worst ones are in the poorer North and East of the city.

FarAwayHills · 12/03/2017 13:30

There are many factors involved in receiving a good education not just having a super selective school in the area.

The most important IMO is the home environment. If a child is lucky enough to be born into a stable, loving family that supports their education then this is half the battle. You can build all the Grammar schools you want but it if those kids from lower income households are not supported at home then they are not going to make it.

BillSykesDog · 12/03/2017 13:37

Riiiiight, so what you're saying is that the feckless poor drag up their children so none of them deserve a decent education far? Because that's what it sounds like.

user1471545174 · 12/03/2017 13:45

YANBU, OP, and you will see that all that matters in education is "the other 85%".

Luckily we no longer have this attitude to (e.g.) sport.

noblegiraffe · 12/03/2017 13:46

outstanding secondary schools in poor areas outside London

Out of interest, why would they have to be outside London? Why would a school in a poor area that is good or outstanding be automatically discounted if it's in the capital?