Selective independants

[poppydoppy]

Do they look better on League tables because the standard of teaching is better or just because they select the children most likely to do well?

- guess : that pacific Island she goes on about kinda gives her away sometimes

There are certain well paid careers which while most definitely being real themselves, and dealing with a facet of life which is very real, are nonetheless drastically removed from what most people consider to be 'real life'. Mine is the same - it's most definitely real, but it's as far removed from most people's lives as narnia is. Just like whizzy corporate legal work is.

But those jobs are only available to "the best children", not "the dregs".

And I gt so pissed off with this "oh, I have so much contact with all sorts of people through my job. Why, only yesterday there must have been, oh, at least 10 working class people brought before me when was on the Bench. I so understand what their lives are like!"

seeker you're getting silly.

Also, those jobs are actually available to the brightest children (as they have been for decades) which is no doubt all that Xenia meant by the 'best'.

And I do wonder how far you know what their lives are like seeker?

At least I am aware that my knowledge is limited!

seeker And I gt so pissed off with this "oh, I have so much contact with all sorts of people through my job. Why, only yesterday there must have been, oh, at least 10 working class people brought before me when was on the Bench. I so understand what their lives are like!

Well, quite - that was kind of what I meant. Corporate law certainly deals in an aspect of 'the real world' but it might as well be Narnia as far as most people are concerned. I think the concept of 'the real world' is ridiculous anyway - what are the characteristics of 'real' in most peoples' experience? Health problems. Relationship problems. Money problems, yes, but most people would put them below the other two in terms of absolute badness and anyway, even the rich aren't impervious to those and they cat inky aren't impervious to the other two categories :(

As far as a particular type of career not being open to the dregs - bit fat WRONG. I'm certainly one of Xenia's 'dregs'.

Cat inky? This marks a new low (or high?) in iPad autocorrect. I think I meant certainly. But from now on I will say cat inky whenever I mean the other thing.

I am being ascribed views I do not have. I respect all people. However none of us surely want children who are not bright enough to be going to university or doing jobs they are not up to, just as you would not want a useless footballer playing for England.

Yes, there are groups and gangs of all types across the globe from Amazon forests to the City to groups of mothers at school gates. I am sure everyone agrees they exist. I am probably one of the least clubbable/gangable people around actually, but to deny groups exist and not to give your children the tools to be part of a group is to fail them as a parent. Now that group may simply be your husband tells his son who leaves school at 16 to join his father working in the local post office what you do to fit in at the local post office or working at Heathrow as cabin staff or it may be helping your daughter fit in at Ernst & Young where her mother is an equity partner on £1m a year.

I certainly agree that we will get the best out of young people and recruit good people if we recruit quite broadly as long as broad is not recruiting from those who are not at all bright for jobs where that is required just as you would not recruit for the Olympics gymnastics team from women weighing only 20 stone and over.

Recruit quite broadly"

What from Habs and NLC?

Surely, Xenia, recruiting the 'brightest' people would almost by definition require looking across the whole range of schools, for the top % of each of them - and in particular recognising that the very brightest children may well be those who do very, very well in non-selective, non-hothouse schools, as that often requires an intelligence and determination over and above that of children who have been in an environment where obtaining such results is 'the norm'.

It's like that statistic that says that non-selective state educated students, once at good universities, do better than their privately-educated and grammar counterparts, even if their A-level results are less good, because they have had (in general) to be brighter and have a strongter work ethic to get those results from those schools.

Does she say that recruiting suitable candidates from abroad range is not good? I thought Xenia just feels her chosen schools are the most likely to equip her children with skills she hopes they will have due to peer group and practice etc.

I don't think the statistics above are as reliable as they sound. I believe the research was done including all subjects at all universities and if I recall correctly, was done by Bristol University. I think that Cambridge have stated that there is no difference between students with similar grades from either sector in their studies. I might be wrong, but this statistic has gained such currency that it is a bit unfair to state schools, most of which are preparing their A Level students pretty well.

I said the brightest. Sometimes ultimately the child who chose not to work at school and left at 16 builds up a business which does really well because they are very bright but were just into girls and drink until they were 25.

I doubt there would be many parents no here who would choose a school their child is likely to do well in than one they would do well in if they had the choice.

Plenty of children go to Oxbridge with good A level grades from comprehensives. The universities have always also made allowance for children from schools which do not usually do very well where a child is doing much better than others there. In a sense that ought to have applied to me - tiny private school where most children did not go to university and I got aberrantly (if that's a word) excellent results.

Where have I said employers recruit only from two private schools? No employers do that. However if you send your children to a good comp or grammar or private school then yes you will improve its chances so go for it.

I am being ascribed views I do not have.
That's a first for MN.
Well you lot may not have contact with the real world on a regular basis but I do.Those on the bottom on the heap the children of illegal immigrants, the under classes, refugees, the physically disabled, those with mental health problems, learning difficulties and more. Let me tell you its a crap place to be in the UK . For these groups getting their DC's into Ernst and Young is not on their radar feeding them, clothing them, putting a decent roof over their heads, access to caring high quality health care and basic education is their priority. They are being let down by the state including education at every turn. It is beyond my comprehension and it makes me so angry that we as one of the richest countries in the world allow this to happen. These are children we're talking about, our future they don't ask to live like they do they haven't chosen it.

How does that relate to selective schooling though unless I suppose selective schooling can be the route of those awful starts some children have? There is a proposed new selective sixth form in London with Westminster School which will be a state selective academy so that may be a route out of poverty for some of those children and be relevant to the thread.

Xenia You are mixing up social skills with tribalism, one is inclusive, the other exclusive. Of course we should equip our DCs with the social skills that will enable them to interact effectively with everyone they encounter, but I think it incredibly important that I raise my DCs to be inclusive in who they interact with, and not dismiss a person because of how they dress, talk, what school they went to etc. etc. Thankfully the education and business sectors understand the need for diversity. No one is saying you shouldn't select people on the basis of the qualities needed for the job , course etc. just that if you have those qualities you shouldn't be excluded from opportunity just because you don't speak and dress in a certain way. That of course works both ways since in some lines of work these days having been to Eton would put you at a disadvantage. Too many of DDs peers at their school do not have these inclusive social skills.

slipshod and teacher Those statistics are compiled for students who are admitted on the basis of contextual evidence of disadvantage, just going to a non selective state would not be sufficient evidence of disadvantage but going to a poorly performing state school and / or shortcomings in teaching would, along with family problems, SpLDs etc . Makes sense given top sets in a good comp will offer the same opportunities as Grammar Schools and a lot of independents to do well All universities are compiling those statistics on an ongoing basis as part of the process of devising fair access strategies and at my uni they do still show that there is a way to go to fully level the playing field, those students who have evidence of disadvantage do outperform other students with similar grades, makes sense , they have already had to be more motivated to overcome disadvantage.

All 6th forms are selective.

"How does thta relate to schooling?"
We know that that all the things I"ve mentioned affect educational outcomes. Ok there will always be the exception to the rule but most will significantly under achieve many will barely learn to read and write! If they live in an area with a selective school be it a state or independent with a generous bursary system they haven't got a cats hope in hell of getting in. If you parents can't even afford to feed you that is going to be their main priority not tutoring for the 11+/13+. But many of these children are likely to be as a capable as yours or mine for example many illegal immigrants/refugees are highly educated thats why they can afford to be here just disadvantaged by the system/lives.
I've sat in meeting and heard teachers say; "well .... lives on that dreadful council estate or in BB or the dads in prison or mums very ill in a wheel chair" so whats difference does that make? That's fine then is it if they under achieve?

Of course it related to education! The single most reliable predictor of educational underachievement is poverty.

That's why selective education is so damaging. Poor kids don't get into selective schools. Of course there are exceptions- but they are very few and far between. So a comprehensive school, where all the opportunities are at least available to all is at least a step in the right direction.

I don't dismiss people who aren't in "my" tribe for example men. I do give them some time and space. I would hope most of us bring up our children to interact with a wide range of people. That is not the same though as wanting to work with or be married to someone who is very unintelligent. There is nothing wrong with wanting a bright partner as that affects the conversations you have for 20 years. In other words some filters like IQ are useful in deciding who will become doctors or one's spouse or whatever. Not all filters or tribes are wrong.

Most people do like to form themselves into groups. I think I am different in that I don't and I like to interact with people of lots of different kinds. I do not hang out at one sailing club but am instead happy to "talk" to benefits claimants on line.

Yes, social skills matter and there is no reason a comprehensive cannot stop children saying "haitch" or you was or "you know" or adding in "like" to sentences where it is not needed as any other type of school - in fact more so as it is more likely the children will not have learned those things at home. Ditto shaking hands, looking people in the eye etc.

I don't think we're in disagreement over the fact that employers tend to do better if they recruit widely. They almost should try to get at least 50% of boards female not 15% (or 1% in Japan). There is some very very narrow recruiting going on which seems to make having a penis the principal criteria.

Selective education is not damaging seeker. Selective schools are dead keen on ensuring fair access at the moment just as top universities are and top employers.

Isn't there also a fair amount of social apartheid still continuing between the best and worst performing comps as well as within the comps themselves?

Yellow,

Access to our local selectives relies on passing the 11+ (verbal reasoning alone, which is not part of the curriculum at state primaries).

State primaries are prohibited from providing any teaching or coaching for the test.

Therefore one of 3 things tends to happen:
a) children are sent to private primaries who specialise in training children towards these tests throughout their primary career.
b) children are coached by private tutors, often for up to a year before the test.
c) parents coach their children at home.

In the face of this, how are these selective schools ensuring fair access for all children regardless of parental income / intelligence / educational background?

Sadly seeker those I've worked with don't do well in areas where's there are not grammar schools either. But how can they? Your parents are illiterate/poorly education, out of work, scratching around to buy food, you live in appalling conditions a B and B or substandard social housing,or your parents are suffering from a debilitating illness or they've been shot or raped in front of you or you face the constant threat of deportation. And let's not forget many experience open hostility from DM readers and the like. State ed rarely comes galloping to their rescue. There are exceptions we have one near me but it requires vision and hard work.