Are Good Schools 'good' because they select?

[Erebus]

In one way or another.

This is following on from the 'Why are people down on grammar schools' thread.

By 'selection' I mean:

• via 11+ (note I haven't said 'intelligence'!)
• religion
• house price/catchment
• wealth
• leading to 'some sort of parental commitment'

If you can select your intake on just about any criteria- OK, within reason!- won't you by default get applicants from the motivated and none from the uninterested? Which'll give you a head start from Day One?

Yes (if by "good" you mean desirable from middle-class aspirational parents' many MNers point of view (as the recent and on-going grammar v non-grammar thread has pointed out) keen to avoid undesirable disruptive students etc )

No (if by "good" you mean offers every child the ability to reach full potential and adds the best value to all)

I don't think parents do get directly involved as much as they do at primary, but parental input still has a massive impact.

They need more equipment at secondary, which secondary children can't always sort out themselves. Things like making sure they have cookery ingredients, a scientific calculator, space and time to do homework, access to the Internet, clean PE kit, and I'm sure I could think of many others. These are all things that parents have to provide, either with their time or money.

I've had to give both of my children a lot of support with getting into the routine of secondary school and doing homework when it's given and that sort of thing. They are both motivated children that want to do well at school, but they are still only 11 when they start!

Then a good school engages the families, pupils and parents alike, even if they may not otherwise have known how to support their children. It may not have an advantaged intake but it gives them a very clear guide to what it expects in terms of homework, behaviour and commitment and manages to convince them to sign up to that.

It's all very well having uniform rules and zero tolerance and all that but parents have to want to be part of it.

Interesting. I guess the reality is that once a school gets a reputation of being 'good' already there's a good chance 'the dynamic' will change and it can become self perpetuating, as in, if a family is looking to move to an area, they might actively choose to move into the catchment of a school that's 'good' or evidently improving. In this way, house prices might rise, therefore a form of 'selection' arises. Or maybe less confident parents shy away from the school fearing being 'out-classed', not-for-the-likes-of-us. Or the school's discipline policy may be beefed up, safe in the knowledge that for every 'little oik' they expel as being too much trouble to guide and reform, a Felix or Charlotte is queuing up to take the place.

And of course, I'd agree that 'a good school' should be one that (Q:) offers every child the ability to reach full potential and adds the best value to all- but in reality, there aren't many of that utopic ideal around, are there? Because, of course, schools get hampered by inadequate parenting- and they can 'offer' all they like, it has to be taken up with focused enthusiasm by the DC at the school. I read here on MN very recently in a thread how the excellent, gleaming facilities of a new school, maybe an academy?- were systematically trashed by the intake as the DC had no grounding or cultural understanding on how to recognise the value of such facilities to themselves and their futures, horse to water etc.

SO as a result, where advantage can be gained, parents 'choose' and schools 'select', one way or another.

I'd ready admit our comp selects by house-price, leafy, MC, highest results in the county. But it appears to do well by all its DC, which is why I chose it: DS1 would've been OK at any local comp where heads aren't routinely flushed down toilets, as he's A or B set-material; but I was concerned about my B-C-D level DS2 and how he'd do in lower sets in less disciplined schools. But, in fact, judging by his reports, DS2 is doing every bit as well as DS1 was at the same age, so the school is doing it's job with less able DC, too.

Not sure how that got in there, it was supposed to be (Q: ) but it looks kind of sweet!

I'm a bit wary of schools with lots of pushy parents, actually. Active, committed, helpful, reasonable parents, but that doesn't always correlate with 'rich'. Especially in primary schools where you get more parents who were privately educated and have very set ideas (and interfere more).

So underdog schools that aren't popular on the outside but very committed on the inside, and getting gradually increasing results, are probably also among the best. I'd certainly be wary of amazing increases in GCSEs from one year to the next because there are ways of fixing that. The really solid schools take about five years to turn around - but parents do need to see some sort of impetus for that to happen.

straggle - I must say that I'm glad our comp doesn't really encourage an open door policy towards parents. Sure, you can easily get to see a teacher if you need to but there's none of that 'hanging around outside the classroom' to see them you can get in primary, but our system means that individual parents can't really 'push' as much as they might like to..

I think our general consensus, as parents is to recognise that the school seems to be doing a good job; they know what they';re doing having been doing it well for decades; we must entrust our DC to their ability and knowledge to get the best out of them!

FWIW I freeze at the idea of 'parent led' schools, like some Free Schools are, just as I don't want to see 'Patient led' health care.

It goes from one extreme to the other with 'parent-led' schools. It seems a bit more appealing than corporate greed-led schools, superhead-led schools (I'm thinking Katherine Birbalsingh!) or religion-led schools. And forced academies just don't work because parents haven't signed up to it. But still, some parents lead, others prefer to follow. It's not a long-term commitment once their children have left without democratically accountable oversight, and engagement with the wider community and other local schools. By definition one school is only 'some parents' while an LA or whatever they invent next is 'all schools'.

It is more likely to harm the children if the parents are over pushy at secondary and I would rather a school to push the children at that age. Parents sometimes have their own view of what is right for their children based on their experiences but by 13 a child should know a bit better themselves and so will the schools. The idea of a parent led free school would put me off tbh.

I consider my DC's school to be good because we, the parents, are all pretty much singing from the same hymn-sheet- but not in a religious way! By and large, we've all pretty much paid to be in catchment so the school's intake is thus reflected, they get to 'select' based on parents' decision or yes, ability to pay the slightly, but not outrageously inflated house prices, at least for around here!

I don't like the insinuation that comps are only looking for Cs (which would show up in the performance tables) or do non-academic subjects. This is why people who promote comps feel so enraged. Do you think any of the parents would not care or know if their child was taking soft options. The school is pushing my son to do all three sciences and took him to the Physics Dept at Birmingham Uni to show him what uni would be like when in Year 7. If atg I think they may be putting too much pressure on - he has not been given the choice of soft options. The competition between the schools round here is great that they want to get as many kids as possible to the great unis to get more students. That is competition between the comps because many parents round here don't believe in tutoring at a young age for the only alternative - the superselectives. To me u don't have a problem really with private schools or superselectives although not my choice but I do have a problem with more money being spent on creating more grammars when the comps are doing such a good job here with the high ability children. This would just divert attention away from the job if schools building capability to educate all children.

Sorry wrong thread. Apologies all.

No, I've worked with some excellent schools and academies in deprived areas recently who have been excellent not just in their results but in their day to day running of the school, promotion of aspiration, developing creativity and providing lots of opportunities.

These schools are rare but it is possible.
And I do think these schools have to work harder than schools were some sort of selection goes whether it be through an affluent catchment area, 11+, religion or whatever else.
One of the reasons I find Gove infuriating, he doesn't recognise the different challenges different schools are facing. Yes we should strive for excellence and high aspiration, but different schools need to do this differently because every school's community tends to differ greatly from the next school along!