Selection get out clause

[mrz]

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/grammar-get-out-clause-confirmed-selection-permissable-within-trusts/?utmcontent=buffer81f1c&utmmmedium=social&utmsource=twitter.com&utmmcampaign=buffer

Having schools for ability, religion, sport, whatever reduces parental choice. It's bizarre that people can't see that.

If you have 3 schools on your doorstep, one selects on ability, one on sport and one on religion, then if your child fits no category (which is pretty likely) then you have no choice. Three comps on the other hand would be a choice.

Schools which each exclude a large part of the community they serve are not the way forward when most communities do not have a large number of schools.

No. I meant an argument that is not relevant to the issue. I might disagree with you if you said that the needs of high ability children cannot be met in comprehensives but it would be a relevant argument

There is secondary modern in Bucks (Mandeville) that has a sports specialism and can admit a small % on sporting aptitude. Does anyone seriously think that parents in Bucks whose child can pass the 11+ and have a talent for sport lie awake at night wondering whether to send their child to a grammar or to Mandeville?

2StripedSocks Mon 03-Oct-16 10:27:36 You may not like it but many parents that can't buy into the best schools

I have to question this claim on two points:

What do you mean by "can't buy into"
What do you mean by the best schools

Neither do the parents with kids that aren't sporty,musical or dramatic that are excluded from other schools

How many schools select on dramatic ability??

No, TM is saying that there will be grammars and other "specialized" schools which won't be secondary moderns because they won't be called secondary moderns. With that logic we could just re-name all comprehensives as grammars. Then we can all be happy.

Comprehensive education means an entitlement
to the same education regardless of ability
Well that would be fine if all children were of the same ability but they are not.
It should be easier to provide a comprehensive education to everyone if they were
in schools with children of broadly the same area/level of ability. aka selection.

If you have 3 comps on your doorstep you are unlikely
to have a choice as to which school you get into.
One will be surrounded by expensive houses you can't afford to buy, so you can't get into it, one will be an awful school no one who cares would ever send their DC to and the last will be a bog standard comp that does ok but doesn't excel at anything. So if your lucky you cross your fingers and hope for average, but you have no choice in this whatsoever.

If you have 3 selective schools on your doorstep you are more
likely to have a choice as to which school you get into.
Parents are more likely to send a child to the school that excels in the area their DC does, maths, technology, music, sport or whatever. If your child doesn't fit into any of these categories then they can go to any of them and still get a good comprehensive education.

It's bizarre people can't see that forcing everyone
into a comprehensive system has reduced choice.

Except that we all know in reality if people have a "choice" of grammars and other schools they will do everything they can to get their child into a grammar. We know this will happen because that's what happens in every selective county in England.

MathsMum Why does setting by subject within comprehensives not achieve everything you want? I tend to think schools should be larger - its a shame large comps seem to have a bad name from the 70s but nowadays I think their advantages would far outweigh any disadvantages.

mathsmum314 - Parents are more likely to send a child to the school that excels in the area their DC does, maths, technology, music, sport or whatever. If your child doesn't fit into any of these categories then they can go to any of them and still get a good comprehensive education.

I live in an area that fits this model i.e. selection is made by academic, music, sports, technology, sibling, cross sibling and distance.

Those children who have the most choice are those who are academically able, have very supportive families and are fairly well off.

Years 3 and 4 at school see a number of children moved to private preps. Other children spend much of their free time in music lessons/practicing or attending sports clubs/fixtures.

Distance cut offs for the schools range from 224 mtrs to 2 1/2 miles (houses closest to this school are outrageously priced and there are very few flats to rent). Opening up selection to numberous criteria creates a super selective area which sees those with SEN or financial constraints getting no choice at all.

To add to the problem is the many families who think these schools are more appealing due to their selectiveness so rent on the doorstep and move back to their family home once a place has been secured. This is leading to a shortage of school places in the area (even less choice for disadvantaged families).

A system like this will be a massive step in the wrong direction. Those already being disadvantaged will be significanly more disadvantaged.

The answer to MathsMum's three schools in a town dilemma seems fairly obvious - amalgamate them into one school. Years 7-9 in one building, 10 and 11 in another and the last sixth form. Setting by ability in core subjects but now with a much larger number of children your top sets will be more stretching. No fuss over admissions as everyone will be going to the same school. What's not to like?

I follow what you are saying HPFA, and it makes sense and is very appealing.

But, the thing that niggles me is: this is pretty much what was done in the USA. They have middle schools and high schools. The high schools are very big (say 300 to 500 in a year group), and in a lot of places there are no private secondaries, and the state will not sponsor religious schools at all. So it really is a truly comprehensive system outside of the big cities which could support private high schools. And frankly, their results aren't great. But, they spend an awful lot per pupil. They are one of the big spenders in the OECD. Check out page 206:

www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/education-at-a-glance-2014_eag-2014-en#page206

Now, I thoroughly appreciate that the schools being comprehensive may not be the problem at all. But being comprehensive hasn't been the solution either. And this is all in an environment where per pupil spending is high.

Hi Elly - I'll admit I thought up the solution whilst eating a lunch of tuna salad so detail is a little lacking!

I don't really know the American system at all - actually it would be quite interesting if someone knowledgeable would tell us about it - however I do think the problem in England is that big comps are associated with 70s style "mixed ability for everything social engineering" type schools. I think the town I live in could be a good experiment. Three reasonable schools but perhaps not really outstanding - although plenty of pupils emerge with very good results. I think they could have economies of scale by merging, money which could be re-invested in extra support for SEN and low achievers and more stretching sets at the top end.

Of course a higher school starting age, play-based Early Years and then traditional curriculum starting at 7+ a la Finland would also be part of the HPFA educational system!

2StripedSocks Mon 03-Oct-16 15:02:25 We still have far too many poor quality comps and even those supposedly good don't push the more able and don't actually need to.

Do you actually have access to research/data that backs up this claim?

As a system it simply doesn't keep everybody happy.

And a Grammar/Sec.Mod. system will?

Tut, tut Mum don't you know they won't be secondary moderns, they'll be "specialized schools"

2StripedSocks Thank you for that snippet of information. Now perhaps you can provide some comparative information for Grammar schools.

How many Grammar schools have 100% making expected progress in maths and English, for example.

Odd then that Michael Wilshaw is ferociously opposed to selection.

HPFA - I did a dissertation on educational differences between UK, Germany and USA.

With huge disclaimers because of the huge variety in all 3 countries - USA does a bit better than the UK did in getting more students to age 18 with a reasonable range of subjects (now England requires kids to be educated to 18, but previously many left at 16 who in the US might attempt to avoid the stigma of being a 'high school dropout'.

USA does worse at motivating the unmotivated - bear in mind school budgets are mainly raised by local taxes. Live in a rich area? Loads of money for your schools. Live in the arse end of Mississippi? Lucky to have a roof on the school, and you can't go to a different school as the next one is 100 miles away. It won't surprise you that richer areas tend to get much better results.

One factor I do like is that anyone getting the grades can go to state college and it's set up so most people can get to a college for at least the first 2 years of a 4 year degree (or come out with an 'associate degree'), so that's a motivating factor.

My impression is junior high is hell on earth mainly because it's full of 12-14 year olds, without the civilising influence of scary sixth formers, and high school is cliquey because you aren't there long enough to get to know people in any other way. Though many US schools have 7-12 grade together.

Thanks Not citrus - that's very interesting. I wonder too if American school of 1000 pupils might be less socially mixed than English schools of the same size?

One or two schools in the county do operate two sites for younger and older pupils - maybe some D of E bod could investigate?

I think the schools work on school districts, so they would reflect their neighbourhoods. On the other hand, the USA has been "bussing" children since desegregation for social reasons. So I think the schools are probably more mixed than British ones which seem to rely heavily on distance as an entrance criterion, or parents' own ability to get children to more distant schools.

NotCitrus, I'd be interested to hear some of your conclusions. From your perspective, what should we copy, what should we avoid?