Worst forms of selection in schools: Views of M'snetters

[thankgodimretired]

Interviews?
Questions concerning parental income?
Academic selection?
Previous school reports?
Decisions made by committee about whether to exclude certain individuals from attending?

Having just recently retired from the teaching profession, I am struck by how little things have changed over the course of my working life. There are certainly less overtly selective schools in the state sector than when I started out teaching in South London in the late 1970's. But the independents, grammars and faith schools appear to be more socially exclusive than at any time.

abolish selection then
simples

I was told by the receptionist not to bother as ds wouldn't get a place at her oversubscribed CofE primary - when I gave my address for her to send a prospectus (this was before many schools had websites).

Friend in a naice part of town several miles further away from the school than the council estate I lived on was offered a place that year

I didn't apply because her attitude stank, but I suspect that was the idea. Does that count?

I'm certainly not in favour of abolishing all selection.

Then you have complete chaos in the class room, I'm merely opposed to
the sort of selection that exists or certainly existed during my career in teaching.

Take for example, TLBC School in Wavertree- when I was there the school was completely selective, using interviews to ensure it admitted a motivated group of children each year.

On the other hand, schools like Blair's Oratory were interviewing parents in addition to the candidates.

Another Catholic school in Purley, North Surrey at which a colleague of mine was head of department, was even interviewing parents and asking them about their jobs and income.

Bring back the grammars.

I'm certainly not in favour of abolishing all selection. Then you have complete chaos in the class room

Really?
Where is your evidence for non selective schools being completely chaotic?

The evidence is apparent to any teacher who has worked in the profession for as many years as I have.

I believe that in order to achieve a more meritocratic education system, we have to accept and protect some selection but do away with some of the mechanisms I have outlined, those that only keep decent working class kids down for perpetuity.

The evidence is apparent to any teacher who has worked in the profession for as many years as I have

Do, please link to research evidence that shows that all non selective schools are chaotic.

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of schools in the UK are non selective there should be masses if you assertion is correct.

What is your evidence in favour of Grammars still enhancing social mobility - when most commonly cited recent evidence states the exact opposite.

Most schools aren't selective (unless we're talking about having the funds to move to the 'right' area). Most schools are no more chaotic than any other large organisation.

Look.

What I'm saying isn't hard to grasp.

You have 400-700 kids competing for 100 places, you interview them, get a feel for the child and select them.

Absolutely what the Oratory, Liverpool Bluecoat, John Fisher's and QEGS Penrith were doing up until fairly recently.

Keep interview selection, but don't interview the parents.

Why must this type of discussion always come down to Yes or No for selection, there's some really good middle ground options out there.

Worst forms of selection?

Religion (real or pretended) of parents - not just socially divisive but acts against social cohesion and lets not even mention the possibility of indoctrination. That one's the worst in my book.

I'm not against academic selection per se (or selection based on some other aptitude) but the current situation where primaries don't prepare the children and therefore it can become reliant (to greater or lesser extents depending on whether 'superselective') on tutoring has corrupted what's left of the old grammar school system (which obviously wasn't perfect anyway).

There may be less overt selection, but the forms we have now are often worse in their effect on amplifying privelige and disadvantage.

You have 400-700 kids competing for 100 places, you interview them, get a feel for the child and select them.

If there are genuinely that many more children than places, the failing in the system is rather larger than a couple of schools.

Large areas of the country cope just fine without selection at all
the vast majority of selective schools do not resort to the prejudice of interviews
and yet the "complete chaos" does not seem to exist.

There are just so few schools kids can be proud to attend nowadays, just such a shame.

Most schools are just indistinguishable from one another, even the best state schools will end up becoming Harris Academies.

I gives me the utter RAGE that there is ANY kind of selection in state schools.

There are just so few schools kids can be proud to attend nowadays, just such a shame
WOW you really are a bitter old hack.
Thank goodness you have left teaching without going near my kids.

You just become conditioned to it, talkinpeace.

I'd rather a few fail so that more can get on, I'm a realist.

Today, there are so few options for decent children.

I teach in a non-selective comp. There is absolutely nothing chaotic about my school.

If you choose to apply for a selective school then you will find that they select based on their own priorities. Fwiw, I didn't think QEGS Penrith did any interviews, I had the impression that they based their selection entirely on the results of the tests.

Utter bollocks. I wish I hadn't graced your stupid thread with an answer.

Today, there are so few options for decent children.
Hogwash.
There are lots and lots of excellent options for lots of decent and not so decent children.
Luckily my DCs have teachers who do not write them off with a parental interview.

It's a sad fact that kids either go to very average schools or very expensive ones, with all that that entails.

Take the Oratory and other once exclusive state schools, they have been brought low because of their selection.

They should have been more fair, less controversial and ultimately more discreet. That way they could have continued their practices to the great benefit of pupils and parents alike.

You do know that interviews aren't permitted under the Code, OP? I've certainly never heard of it happening sneakily, and you can bet that sort of news would be round the town in seconds.

Why are they interviewing the parents in the state sector, I know why it happens in the independent sector? Are you saying that if you take two children; A and B both are equally capable and bright but the decision to take A over B will be taken on how the parents interview? Or is that just speculation on your part?

It's a sad fact that kids either go to very average schools or very expensive ones
OP, you are a troll as no competent or professional teacher would say such a thing about schools all over the country.

I would suggest that you get this thread pulled before the Friday wine starts to flow.

Interviews were abolished some time ago.

Faith qualifications these days need to be countable things (like frequency of attendance) or proof of membership (being on roll, baptism), and the arcane ones should have been eliminated, though I'm not sure if they've totally gone yet.

The interview (just one example of how to do it) helps to weed out the children that won't benefit from a orderly education.

Liverpool Blue Coat, Oratory and several other schools were employing this practice until very recently.

I am totally against parental interviews, but I am in favour of selective schools, yes.

I'm not so sure that there's an argument for not interviewing the parents. By taking that option the school is getting an idea of the level of support and interest in the child and his/her education and of expectations of behaviour, manners etc.

I attended a South East London grammar in the mid to late 70's.

The school selected in several ways and all parts had to be passed in order to gain entry. They were, in no particular order:

Passing the 11+
Past school reports
Primary school headmaster's reference
Reference from my priest
Faith
Interview between pupil and headmistress
Interview between parent and headmistress
Interview by headmistress of parent and pupil together

I was a "decent working class kid", daughter of a divorced parent on a low income and living in rented accommodation.

A large percentage of my classmates were also decent working class kids. The middle classes were in the minority.

I'd be happy to see an identical selection process still carried out if the results were the same.

I'm a teacher in a non-selective school and it is NOT chaos! We have some very disadvantaged students and some very privileged students. Everyone is included and everyone has the same right to their education!
Selective schools might work for the most able, but the disadvantaged will suffer from inadequate mixing with different walks of life, IMHO.