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.

I think the barrier referred to is the one where comps are not supporting the children well enough in their application choices, some comps don't even suggest it as a possibility but simply direct students to the local universities, and sometimes actively discouraging it by perpetuating the idea that, "its not for them".

Gunznroses where comps are not supporting the children well enough in their application choices, some comps don't even suggest it as a possibility but simply direct students to the local universities, and sometimes actively discouraging it by perpetuating the idea that, "its not for them" I've not come across this. However, the non selective schools in my area all offer a grammar stream. One non selective school runs their grammar stream under the guidance of a highly sought after selective school.

What Word doesn't say is how many who were privately educated take the places at Oxbridge. I thought it was at least half. From reading Word's posts I get the feeling that she is dismissive towards comprehensive pupils. Does that attitude come across to the applicants themselves - they say they want to widen access but in practice, not really?

However, some of it is definitely a product of the school's expectations - Eton expected the likes of Cameron to go to Oxford - we could discuss whether he is particularly intelligent or not.

mum yes, the cost of tertiary education is very off putting to some families. And an increasing number choose to attend their local university to save on living costs.

However, this isn't the whole story, as Oxbridge actually has so many bursaries, and the cost of accommodation is quite cheap compared with many other universities.

What we've found is a fair bit of lack of interest from the schools in widening access. Or a reluctance to put things in place that would encourage widening access (sometimes this reluctance tips into outright resistance).

So some schools are still giving poor advice or no advice to their brightest pupils about GCSE and A level options.

Some schools are still encouraging or not discouraging their pupils from sitting too many GCSEs, thus diluting their chances at teritairy level.

Some schools are still peddling the myths of equivalence both in terms of qualifications and universities.

Some schools do almost nothing to help students navigate the process of application.

Some schools do almost nothing to bust the Oxbridge myths and some even collude in them.

But ultimately, one of the biggest problems is that the brightest DC are just not getting good enough grades!

lavulcan I am not remotely dismissive of comprehensive pupils. Why would I spend so much time visiting them if I were?

Seriously?

What I am frustrated about is the schools they attend.

What strikes me though is that, I think understandably, many state sixth formers aren't going to find the idea of being one of 25% of state school kids at a university very attractive! Which is of course self fulfilling, but it does mean I think that one of the most important 'myths' is not a myth! and doesn't lend itself to logical busting.

Gunznroses I think that has always been true to some extent, especially for girls, sadly. My girl's grammar school never sent anyone to Oxford at all. The year before I went there they sent one to Cambridge, but no more during the following seven years. Absolute droves were sent to teacher training colleges, regardless of whether they would make good teachers or not. (Seen at the time as a nice little job which filled the gap until your real career of marriage began!)

nit yes indeed.

And that is a hard bridge to cross.

It's also true that we turn down more comprehensive applicants than any other sector (statistically). And I'm sure that that filters out as 'we don't want you' when really it's often 'you don't have the grades' or 'you took the wrong subjects' ...the last being so frustrating!

But the other myths that abound, schools could really help with.

Some recent corkers I've come across;

It costs more.
You have to waer your gown every day.
The lectures are nine to five.
You have to prepare for extra exams.

Many too are going to be put off the Bullingdon style antics portrayed in the press.

I do wonder about how the split from the different types of school is between science and the arts at Oxbridge. My impression is, only going by the schools I have had dealings with, that Cambridge is seen as more accessible (and better for maths, science and geography) so they are more prepared to encourage students to have a try if their ambitions lie in that direction.

The worst form of overt selection in schools is religion.

NO 4 year old has a concrete understanding of their beliefs : choosing a religious school at that stage is down to the parents' prejudice.

Faith secondary schools perpetuate sexist and racist distinctions and facilitate the 'silo' mentality that allows so many minority groups to feel excluded from the liberal democracy in which they are growing up.

The worst form of covert selection is uniform / equipment
YYY to the logos on everything and the blazer only from Peter Jones
and the glossy prospectus that gets sent to the home address with the 'wrong' postcode.

Selective state selection probably works for those on the right side of the cut. But it labels all of the rest as failures at age 11 which is not good for the long term economic wealth of the country.

Wordfactory
Out of interest, does your data mining discriminate between "comps" within range of a superselective so areas where the kids know that the really bright kids are not at their school
and those where "comp" genuinely means all those who are not paying fees ?

And YYY if you could knock some sense into careers officers at many schools - no, sociology is not a facilitator subject for vet school - it would be good for the country in general, not just where you work.

TheWordFactory as Oxbridge actually has so many bursaries if you are focusing your efforts on the secondary schools do you really think that is the best way to communicate this fact to parents?

I did not have any help finding a primary school (except for a list of local schools) yet I found one I am happy with. I am in the process of looking for a suitable secondary school for my DC yet the primary school is offering no help. In light of this why do you feel it is the role of the secondary school to promote Universities?

TheWordFactory and the cost of accommodation is quite cheap compared with many other universities Where can this information be found?

mum the information is all readily available on the websites.

But other than that, we try to get out there and tell people as early as possible so prospective applicants don't get put off by incorrect assumptions.

I still think though, that schools are better placed to help here. They see the kids every day. Discussing universities, all universities, should just be part and parcel of what they do.

MumTryingHerBest

Technically secondary schools are obligated to provide good quality independent, impartial advice to pupils since the demise of Connexions, so secondary schools do have a duty to advise on HE.

In reality though, a school will not give advice to a pupil if it directly conflicts with a schools own priorities. I went to an open evening at a school recently. They proudly showed off their careers suite. I nodded politely and asked why there were no leaflets on show from ANY of the Merseyside FE Colleges or other education providers. Response was something along the lines of "cough cough ahem".

It's a disgrace.

I'm really surprised to hear teachers are saying those off-putting things - I've never encountered a school that isn't cock-a-hoop if students get into Oxford or Cambridge! What can be meant by 'extra exams'? Things like the Law test?

Mind you, the most off-putting thing I've seen lately was that godawful crass internet thing where the Oxford students themselves held up cards to counter the 'micro-agressions' thing.

Would I want to study somewhere where the same Nigerian was used twice as the only BAME student, holding up a card saying 'the Fellows seem to really like it when I wear my Nigerian national dress to formal hall!!'. Not much.

TheWordFactory I still think though, that schools are better placed to help here. They see the kids every day Evidently not if you are meeting such a high level of resistance that it is not having a satisfactory affect.

Personally I think it is equally important to educate the parents as ultimately they will be in a position to have a final say in whether a child attends a university (after all they will be paying the bills).

information is all readily available on the websites perhaps this is has something to do with the reluctance to consider Oxbridge. Whilst I am quite prepared to spend hours/days/months surfing the internet to find out the comparable cost of sending my DCs to Oxbridge, I am sure many parents will go by word of mouth and buy into the hype.

nit it wasn't the teachers saying them all, it was that they were doing nothing to correct them IYSWIM. Although it was a teacher who said there were extra exams, they had no idea that the old entrance exams had been abandoned eons ago. They certainly had no idea about the (relatively) new aptitude tests and what they entailed.

TheOriginalSteamingNit I'm really surprised to hear teachers are saying those off-putting things - I've never encountered a school that isn't cock-a-hoop if students get into Oxford or Cambridge! That is my experience too. One of the non selective schools had their first successful Oxford candidate last year and they had the PR plastered everywhere (this is the school that runs their grammar stream in conjunction with one of the selective schools).

I have to admit that they should be proud of the fact, given that they have 7 selective schools on their doorstep yet still get good results by national standards.

mum how will I get to the parents though?

TheWordFactory Although it was a teacher who said there were extra exams, they had no idea that the old entrance exams had been abandoned eons ago. They certainly had no idea about the (relatively) new aptitude tests and what they entailed. Could they have been referring to the new aptitude tests when they referred to exams? I was under the impression that there is a STEP test/exam and the 6 children I know who applied to Oxford all used tutors to prepare for it.

TheWordFactory mum how will I get to the parents though? I could write you a Marketing Plan if you want. I was a Marketing Director before having children. Of course it would depend on the budget.

Economic selection
Private schools aren't the be all and end all, but they do have a high correlation with success so providing greater access to them via bursaries and state funding would help. However, this 5% of the system is dwarfed by the next one

Religious selection
Why are all taxpayers paying for state schools that only those attending certain churches go to can access? This is much worse than private schooling, where (charitable status aside), they at least pay for themselves and reduce the tax burden. Church schools want to exclude people and get taxpayers money. Not sure of the stats, but that's about 30% of our system.

Covert economic selection
Schools that have a catchment area the size of a football pitch amongst houses worth more than 10x the average salary. Not a lot can be done here because this would happen even if all private, grammar and faith schools were abolished. You have to allocate places somehow and distance is pretty much the fairest. So even if we had the social democtratic ideal, there would still be plenty of selection and a large correlation between wealth and "inheritied" success.

We are doomed to the status quo.

We can't vote for electoral reform and we can't vote for independence. Voters fear change.

Went off the rails a bit there ......

mum no he was on about the old style exams, said in a 'oh our students don't want to be doing those' style.

I pointed out that he was a bit out of date as politely as I could. But it's terrible when you think this is what those kids have heard up til now!

As for the new aptitude tests; well yes people will get tutored. Twas ever thus. But I would say ineffectual.

People, generally, IME, have some odd notions about Oxford and Cambridge. I know of some parents who are absolutely adamant you can't get in unless your parents went, for example! Stoutly maintained in the face of immediate manifest evidence to the contrary!

But I think it's important to distinguish between things teachers are saying and things they may not even be aware that some of their pupils think: they can't actually go around correcting things in children's heads all day, can they?

LaVolcan I the DC in question had three A* at GCSE and three As at A level and in response to being asked whether the DC might have done better and had more opportunities in a selective school the mum said the DC was studying Medicine at Cambridge. Which was surprising but good. Cambridge must have given a lower offer or let the DC in anyway having missed the grades. Possibly in recognition of unusual achievement at the given school.