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.

Sure but we are talking about the 11+ test. It's fairly similar to an IQ test. IQ is just a way of measuring intelligence that doesn't rely on education (I'm talking about the culture fair test). On average, intelligent people have intelligent children, that is a fact. Just like how on average tall people have tall children.

Just like how on average tall people have tall children.
an average is just that
both of my kids are shorter than DH and I
but brighter

heredity is a funny thing

and state funded education should not seek to perpetuate its fluctuations

"Sure but we are talking about the 11+ test. It's fairly similar to an IQ test. IQ is just a way of measuring intelligence that doesn't rely on education (I'm talking about the culture fair test)."

IQ tests have been largely discredited. And the 11+ in all the areas I have come across does rely on education.

If IQ tests have largely been discredited - why is it, exactly, that the children who do very well at IQ tests (such as the 11+) tend to go on to excel academically?

The best tests like CATs and Midyis only have a predictive power of about 0.7.

Ta1kinPeace

This is exactly my point though, on average smart people have smart children. Smart people tend to earn more on average. We should not be surprised when on average the children of people who earn more are more likely to pass the 11+.

You have the occasional set of tall parents who have short children but this is statistically unusual. Midwives are now starting to use individual growth charts that are based on the mothers height and race because doing one size fits all does not reflect reality.

We should not be surprised when on average the children of people who earn more are more likely to pass the 11+.

Indeed but isn't it odd that the children of better-off parents are more likely to get into a grammar school than a poor kid who gets the same SATs results? That suggests that something other than merely superior brainpower is going on.

But, is the SATs test like the 11+ test? I don't think SATs tests, are very like IQ tests are they?

Back to the more general question of the thread, I'd suggest that most people who are in favour of grammar schools are only looking at it from the pov of someone who either attended a grammar or who expects their dc to attend. I don't object in theory to some kind of streaming of provision, but it needs to be a FAR better selection system, and a recognition that those who struggle academically need a lot more finance per head, than those who are very capable, so, and Gvmnt funding should reflect that, with funding on grammar schools being a lot less than funding going in to schools working with dc who struggle to learn for any one (or often several) of an absolute myriad of reasons

Grammar schools already have lower funding, they have significantly lower funding than the secondary moderns in Kent.

I am in favour of the grammar system, I have one ds in a SS, one in Sec modern. My third dc is in a private school, so I have one in every sector.
Ds got in to SS while we were on benefits, we now earn enough money to send dd2 to private school, she has ASD and got badly bullied in the state sector (we tried two schools).

There has been lots of movement too in the SS sixth form, at least 10% have moved from Sussex comps or Kent Sec modern.

MaQueen, you seem to be suggesting that a less bright poor kid can routinely do as well in their SATs than an exceptionally bright rich kid. This would be odd.

I like IQ tests, I usually see them in a work setting and, if done with a good ed psych and not done too young they seem to correlate pretty well with academic achievement. A spiky profile can also explain why a bright student is underperforming - say, comparatively low processing or working memory scores impacting on output.

The highest IQ (139 on WISC IV) I've seen in the last few years was on a girl who was top of her year and is now doing maths 4 years ahead. Her parents requested it because the school were initially reluctant to extend her beyond year level in maths and she was disengaging.

"Grammar schools already have lower funding, they have significantly lower funding than the secondary moderns in Kent."
Grammar schools in Kent receive very little pupil premium funding. Because they have very few pupil premium pupils.

Widening the tiscussion from my question if yesterday?
Last year I was involved with a group looking at "Apprenticeships" around our area. All the compaies who took on apprentices as part of their recruitment program made a similar comment abiut schools.

That the school "performance" league tables only look at students going to university. And that most schools focus on getting students to university as a result giving very little importance to non academic subjects. As a result non academic sutdents are possibly being let down.

This is important as we all need a plumber and not everyone can do things with their hands. Indeed my BiL is a rresearch scientist, but I wouldn't trust him with a screwdriver... neither does nis wife.

Gawd... my typing is bad... sorry

noblegiraffe Can you link me to the SATs 11+ rich/poor students thing? I would like to take a look? I am a statistician so would like to check out their figures :)

"This is important as we all need a plumber and not everyone can do things with their hands. Indeed my BiL is a research scientist, but I wouldn't trust him with a screwdriver... neither does nis wife."

Absolutely, itsnoteasy. DH is a computer scientist, by training, and did Further, Pure and Applied Maths at university...he can't so much as put a shelf up, at home

We get the same local handyman in every time to do our DIY. He has no formal qualifications to his name, and even if he'd tried really hard at school he was never going to end up reading Further, Pure and Applied Maths.

I don't have access to the data!

The bit in the article about this says "Even with identical test results at the end of primary school, higher-attaining children from the poorer postcodes scored, on average, 20 marks less in the new Bucks test (the pass mark is 121 marks) than their better-off peers."

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

Of course there is a large hereditary component to intelligence, but the opportunity to express and develop it makes all the difference. This is why most students at my university (RG) are not from ordinary comprehensives. We have a real diversity problem.

Now, I wouldn't even go as far as calling those who have got AAB (our course requirements) extremely bright: some will be, but some have undoubtedly benefited from advantages that others just don't have - I'd say the kid getting e.g. BBB all on their own in a pretty bad environment probably has more natural intelligence. A poor background, possible with other factors, is likely to bring you down. I see this time and time again.

Okay I've found the data its linked from the article, the score difference between FSM kids and non FSM kids is 78.7, but the score difference between FSM kids and non FSM kids who have the same SATs score is 20.

So there is some difference that is due to coaching/help at home etc (the 20 points) which I previously said was definitely a part of it, just not the main part of it. However there is a much bigger difference between FSM kids and non FSM kids in general. Which would suggest that the FSM kids have less natural ability in general at these kinds of exams (Maths, non verbal reasoning, verbal reasoning, English).

Incidentally the sample sizes for making that claim of the 20 point difference is very small and would have very low confidence - but some data is better than no data.

I'm fully supportive of comprehensive education for everyone. Where all subjects are setted and pupils are moved up and down to find their own level.
Often children develop at different rates as the mature. from my personal experience of my two DC.

DC1 i was told by class teacher not to bother with 11 plus as he was an average student. He went to an excellent comprehensive, set 3 in maths moved to top set in everything else over time, was confident as he never had to struggle to keep up as classes suited his ability. He's now a 5th year medical student and has won awards for his work.

DC2 failed 11 plus so went to local comprehensive school again started off as a slow burner, working in ability setted classes helped, he got excellent GCSE's and A levels and now is at a RG university.
Some kids get as far as they can be pushed by age 11, some have only just started to blossom. A comprehensive education would suit everyone better.
A friend went to a grammar and it destroyed his confidence as he was surrounded by so many high achievers and he struggled to keep up. He left at 16 thinking he was a failure.

Godstopper you are definitely correct, my FIL works in the data dept for a large russell group uni and when analysing their entry data they found that students with the same grades from private schools are less likely to get a 2.1 than those from state schools.

I would expect that this comes from learning an ability to learn by yourself, which is extremely important at university where many courses have very low contact hours. Students from private schools which have very small class sizes and much more enforced working are less likely to do well compared to state school students who had to work alone under their own motivation to get the entry grades.

""Even with identical test results at the end of primary school, higher-attaining children from the poorer postcodes scored, on average, 20 marks less in the new Bucks test (the pass mark is 121 marks) than their better-off peers."

Doesn't this just show that more intelligent people usually earn more money, and produce more intelligent children? And, that the SATs test don't really test IQ, whereas the the new Bucks test/11+ does...

Doesn't this just show that more intelligent people usually earn more money, and produce more intelligent children

Why would these more intelligent children not perform better than less intelligent children in their SATs? The whole point of sticking them in a different school is because they are supposed to do better at their GCSEs.

"Why would these more intelligent children not perform better than less intelligent children in their SATs? "

Because, SATs test are more about general knowledge, and just churning out stuff they've done at school, I think?

Whereas, IQ is something quite different, I think? Like my DH has a very high IQ, but is pretty rank at Trivial Pursuit as his general knowledge isn't great.

It's the difference between pure intelligence and just 'knowledge'.