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.

So who were you referring to, Bill. What percentage of people who are anti grammars do you think can afford £500,000+ houses?

If they can afford £500,000+ houses then they would be able to buy their kids a place in a grammar, so your argument doesn't really make sense that people are anti grammar because they can buy their way into the best schools.

I'd say high salaries have more to do with geography than IQ. There are loads of well educated people doing jobs around the UK that they need to be highly qualified for what people in London seem to consider a pittance (if mumsnet is representative of people's views generally). My friends are all graduates, with many years in the workplace behind us, but we don't earn the mumsnet definition of a good salary.

However Rhayder you are right ! Nobody questions that Genetics makes some people more likely to develop Dementia , Cancer or Obesity . It is however for some reason deemed to be offensive to say that a family that has never had an high achiever in anything in two to three generations is 'Genetic'.

Genetics certainly has a part to play , but lack of achievement is not soley down to genetics. Terrible teaching and a lack of special needs understanding can also bring down bright pupils attainment.

Yes, it's always seemed a bit strange to me that it's acceptable to say some things are genetic and some things are not, even if the evidence is incontrovertible. I agree, no matter how smart someone is if they come from a home with drug abuse or domestic violence they are obviously not going to achieve their potential. This works the other way too, you can push people with tutoring and access to resources.

Yes London salaries are way higher but FSM is a very low household salary: £16,190. AFAIK there are no studies on the difference between households earning 25K and 50K etc. It's just FSM vs Non FSM. But if there are any I would be interested to take a look.

It's relative.

Local house prices are often governed by local salaries. Housing in the better areas may seem cheaper to Londoners on a London salary but not if you are on a local salary.

Selection often isnt about ability. It is about how pushy and how much money parents have.
Theres a langauge gap of thousands of words before a child is 3. The culture gap etc between different home backgrounds is massive.

Then you get people tutoring the life out of their kids to get them in to these schools and tutor through gcse and then A level and through the selective system they meet other kids and parents like them and get contacts and work experience that will help them get into top universities.

their kids are not inherently massively smarter than other kids. They've just had more opportunities and resources thrown at them.

Selection creates a network that enshrines the privilege of those in it and keeps others out. Just you wait until all these yummy mummies whove spend years having their dahrlings tutored start complaining how unfair it is that a bright kid from the sink estate got into grammar with lower marks and their baby missed out. Call me cynical but its social selection and snobbery by ensuring your child gets to mix with the 'right' kind of child.

Maybe if the chattering classes spent a little more time valuing and investing in inclusive state education for all instead of privates and grammars to appease middle england 'i think im so special' then we might actually have something resembling a level playing field based on merit and not parental pushyness.

You're confusing grammars with private schools. Grammars have the same inequalities re unis and lack of contacts comps have.

Some grammars already have priority for pp kids,no complaints in our neck of the woods.

And re mixing with the right types that sooooo applies to comps. In towns up and down the country there are favoured comps/ primaries and unflavoured comps/ primaries with parents moving heaven and earth to ensure their kid gets in the right school.

Middle England don't send their DC to private schools,they can't afford it.

What exactly are the "chattering classes" ?

MaisyPops Can you actually point to any studies that would back up your claims. Okay, a 3 year old from a poor family might have a lower vocabulary than one from a rich family, but what's to say this isn't genetics? Richer families tend to have higher IQs (the "tend to" is important - we are talking about averages here, not individuals).

I live in London in an area that doesn't have grammar schools. And the selection is either based on religion or house prices. Where I live, the average 3-4 bedroom house will be in the region of 1-1.5M, but 500M down the road in the catchment of a fantastic comprehensive school the prices are double.

What is better, a system that selects PURELY on wealth (in the majority of cases around here, its family money that would allow you to buy), or one that is based on a score on an exam, that may be partially influenced by money for tuition at the margins.

I have worked in schools, and there is really only so much you can do with tuition alone. Individual capabilities do play a massive part in individual achievement - and studies back this up. I know many families who have unsuccessfully tutored their children for the 11+ and they now send their children to private schools.

Maisy,

I'm all for having universally good education system, which cater for the needs of children from all educational abilities. As that is not going to be achieved any time soon, parents will do continue to do whatever they can to provide the best education for their children, as they see it. Is that fair on all children? No, I don't suppose it is. But I'm not prepared to send my DC to a school I have no faith in, given that I have the choice not to.

However, although this would make the system fairer, there is no system in the world which will ever level the playing field entirely. Children who have well educated parents have an advantage from the day they are born, because their parents have educational and social skills and capital, which they teach and pass on to their children. These children are also more likely to start school with basic reading and writing skills. They have other advantages- parents who are more likely to be able to help if children get stuck with homework, for instance, or know someone else who can. You are also never going stop highly motivated parents from coaching/doing work at home with their children- even if you were to try measures like banning tutors.

You're confusing grammars with private schools. Grammars have the same inequalities re unis and lack of contacts comps have.
No i'm not. I'm outlining my experience in my area based on almost 10 years experience in education.

In my experience (and friends who teach in grammars and privates) there are many more opportunitieas than in your average state school.

Chattering classes is a common phrase for slightly snobby middle-upper class people who spend their time chattering away on all sorts without any consideration of life outaide their little affluent bubble.

primaries with parents moving heaven and earth to ensure their kid gets in the right school
I have equal issue with this. The reason that the provision varies so much is because the entire system is based on parents who have money. There is only choice in the education system if you can pay tutoring, private fees, house in a nice area/catchment.
There is very little choice if you can't. Thr vast majority of people who yammer on on these threads have never actually seen the effects of these systems on actual kids. I have and it changed my view on lots of things.

rhyader
Maisy is actually under stating the language exposure issue
literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap
www.naeyc.org/tyc/article/the-word-gap
www.npr.org/2013/12/29/257922222/closing-the-word-gap-between-rich-and-poor

However, although this would make the system fairer, there is no system in the world which will ever level the playing field entirely
I agree. Its why i raised the fact that kids with educated parents have all the benefits you mention. As a result it annoys the life out of me to hear people going on about how their kid is somehow more special/inherently brighter when environmental factors play a role.
I can understand parents wanting to do the best for their child. Id hate to end up in the position of having to choose failing school or playing the game. The reality people face that choice.

But the post was asking why people have an issue with selection and they are my reasons. I am politically and philosophically against that system. I dont agree with it for the reasons I've outlined.

Ta1kinPeace

I don't doubt the gap, I doubt the reason that Maisy stated for the gap.

Ta1kinPeace I was going to put millions but thought I might have misremembered.

Yes. No level playing field.
But lots of MNers like to ignore the advantage background plays.

The statistics in news articles used to point to the attainment gap between rich and poor students at 16, so the government poured money into secondary education. But then it was found that this made little difference because the attainment gap existed even earlier. So the government invested in primary education. But then it was found that the attainment gap is present on the first day of primary school, so the government gave free pre school hours to all children to combat this.

Now, you are showing me a study that shows that the gap is present before pre school.

Here is a study on children ages 18M to 2 years that shows the language gap. news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html

If anything, this just re-enforces my view that a large amount of the difference in attainment is due to inherited abilities.

So what are all these advantages?

"So what are all these advantages"

Oh, I don't know- 3 meals a day, a quiet place to do homework, no caring responsibilities, parents with the time/energy/inclination to listen and take an interest, parents who have an education themselves, not being in local authority care, not living in a B&B, clean clothes when you need them.........would you like me to go on?

And on the next level, parents who read and share books, parents who take you to museums and galleries and extra curricular activities, a family who talk over dinner, money to spare for outings and holidays, a room of your own that' well lit and warm and dry where you can keep your things........

No the many more advantages of being in a grammar.

It's because, by & large, some people hate to think that some children are just inherently more intelligent than other children. The age at which they are tested and deemed 'more intelligent' is neither here nor there. They just are. yes, okay...you might get some late bloomers...but, thousands of children are perfectly capable of, and do, display sufficient levels of higher intelligence when they are 10/11.

And, as I have said a million times Tutors do not have magic wands. They need something to work with. We're in a GS area, and I know plenty of children who were tutored, who didn't pass the 11+.

And, yes...there are some children who somehow scraped through the 11+, and continue to barely scrape by at GS. But there's really not many of them at all. If there were then the GS wouldn't have such excellent exam results.

And, yes...there are some children who might really excel at, say, maths and science - but struggle with English. So, it's unfair that they don't get given a grammar style education. However, grammar schools are brim full of children who excel at everything (pretty much). Even if their 'weakest subject' they are still in the top 25%.

I don't believe that they are evil hot houses, either. The vast majority of the children cope absolutely fine academically, and are no more stressed than any other normal child at secondary school. They're certainly not all being tutored. There are upwards of 1200 girls at my DDs' grammar - and I can promise you, there aren't even a fraction enough tutors locally to service over a thousand girls 'supposedly' struggling academically.

They're doing fine. Thriving academically, on their own merit and ability.

My only argument against grammars is that they shouldn't cream off the top 25%. It should be more like the top 10%.

Ah. There goes the neighborhood.

I challenge anybody to find me a peer reviewed study that shows that IQ is not hereditary.

IQ, Intelligence Quotient, is a number produced by someone taking an IQ test. There's a huge amount of literature from Burt to Lester as to exactly how much our inherited DNA goes towards achieving a high score in such a test. And a lot more discussing the meaning of the word 'intelligence'.

All humans are intelligent. The degree by which performing a task on one day is sufficient to judge their future capacity for learning a limited range of skills, is not proven.

And IQ doesn't equal intelligence.

www.indy100.com/article/iq-level-test-intelligence-myth-new-study-neuron-journal-7599446

I believe that a higher level of intelligence is largely inherited. Not always. But usually.

At only 3 DD2 showed a high aptitude for all things mathematical. Her nursery commented on it. And, I can promise you, we had done nothing with her, to 'show' her how to do simple maths. And, yet, DH also showed impressive mathematical ability from a very young age.

Similarly, DD1 is extremely artistic. Always has been since she first put crayon to paper. I'm a pretty decent artist myself, although I never 'taught' her to do anything. It was innate. Several close family members were semi professional artists.

It is a bit baffling. Life is and will always be unfair. Not everyone can do everything. It is fine as far as i can see to select in life by any othe means - talent on football field, money to buy designer gear, money to buy certain car/house etc etc, aptitude to dance etc. Most of this is a bit silly, Don't really see education is that different. I am also quite happy for people to send their kids to a school with a strange or religious ethos, home ed, pay for education or do anything much else as long as the child gets an education! what i think is wrong is criticising others for their choices or demanding from any state school miracles on a tight budget.