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.

PS
FSM at DCs school is 15% : within 3% of the four nearest schools in its LEA
but a lot less than the 60% FSM at my local school
even the infamous Thornden still has 3% FSM

BUT
FSM is a measure of household income, not the intellectual capacity of the children if they are given the same opportunity term in, term out, year in, year out
rather than missing out on the 11+ because their parents were too broke / disorganised / at work that night/day

Talkin, trivial point but I've never heard of Latin lit / lang being treated as 2 separate IGCSEs. Most would n't count further maths as a whole separate GCSE either.

summerends
You'd need to take that up with AQA then : I have the exam results sheets

Latin is OCR BTW : check "the student room" for discussion thereof

TBH until this term I'd not heard that IGCSE Maths did not include an "non calculator" paper so is not deemed adequate preparation for the A level : you live and learn

I'm being lazy Mum, and using a shorthand. The point I'm attempting to make is that whereas grammars have pretty much the correct number of FSM children according to their academic criteria, the comps - or the well heeled parents at the comps - are being rather more sly in refusing to acknowledge their social exclusion by wealth. So I think perhaps time to climb down from their high horse.

Talkin MN can be childish, but you're taking the biscuit. It might possibly be better things to do, rather than idleness. I'm not sure a MN 'Advanced Search' should define intellectual ability either . As Word said, let's cut to the chase: can you give us the results by A, without conflating A/ A? All I'm doing is to try to respond to your challenge, but you're very clearly now not making this easy. If you insist on a challenge, at least have the bottle to carry it through.

and its so sweet that yet another private boarding school parent cares so much about the results in the sort of school they pay to avoid.

I try not to comment on the oh so cliquey A Level / Pre U threads
brag city, just phone each other FFS
and yet folks who have never darkened the door of a comp see fit to know what is on the results sheet I have in my office.

But Molio that sounds as though you're saying all comprehensives are selective by expensive catchment, or at least that it's a really really common situation.

Actually, I have nothing to watch until the Jo Brand bake off show; I'm going to see what the FSM is in the schools near us....

Latin literature is a separate paper not GCSE unless the school is double counting the short course and full course.
I don't really know about what IGCSE maths includes but it obviously does n't hold those at my DCs schools and others from getting 40-50+% A* further maths A level or equivalent. That may be because they do further maths 'GCSe' or go well beyond the syllabus before starting sixth form.

molio
the results have neither been published nor finalised so no, of course I can not. Any parent from any school who says they can is a liar.

The A/A* table was started by the Torygraph for private schools : why are you upset that comps have jumped on the bandwagon?

BUT MORE TO THE POINT
Selection by god and gonads creating silos, paid for by the taxpayer : are you happy with that?

Talkin I guess if your kids aren't yet doing A levels/ Pre-U and you aren't a professional, you may not have that much to say?

Talkin I have OCD tendencies for facts and therefore have a compulsion to correct inaccuracies and intellectual dishonesty

Jo Brand bake off? I'm there :)

Molio
You what? I'm a beancounter with a lecturer DH and a DD doing AS : does that make me an amateur
or just not rich enough to give a stuff about Pre-U
Summerends
I'm not sure what's dishonest about DD's results sheet that states clearly that she has the same 13 full GCSEs and IGCSEs as her friends

your comments prove to me the sort of people that the OP regard as "decent" : you and he would clearly get on very well

10 o clock beeb 2 Molio!

The pre U thing is very much a private school discussion.

Talkin now I'm . How do you surmise that the term intellectual dishonesty applied to your DD's results. Double counting latin does seem inaccurate though but maybe all these DCs doing latin have been missing a trick.

It seems to me that if we have anything other than a purely co-ed, secular, comprehensive state system (i.e. no real choice, just where is the nearest available space) then we concede that there is going to be choice.

If there is going to be choice then it will come in many flavours.

• Academic
• Faith
• Economic
• Sex

and so on.

It is probably inconsistent to approve of one set of "choices" (e.g. grammars) but disapprove of another (e.g. faith or private).

I am sure I suffer from cognitive disonnance on this (and many other points), simply choosing to ignore data that contradicts a strongly held belief.

I think the logic of my "choice" analysis is sound - but I don't like it as it means I have to accept faith schools (which I don't like) along with others (that I do like).

WHO ON THIS THREAD WILL CONFESS TO THIS

And lo! A man appeared...

I think there's a meme for that, Nit

Personally I feel my logic on this is pretty consistent - I'd prefer all schools to be comprehensive, i.e. not to select on any of the grounds you outline, or any other. Some (although not many) other countries have managed to get close to this, and maintain very high educational standards. I think it's only achievable if all schools are very good - otherwise people start fighting for their own children to the detriment of others.

People often use your argument to suggest that those of us who disagree with selection are being disingenuous if we campaign against, say, faith schools, because doing so won't get rid of selection. Well no, but I'm not sure it's possible to campaign on all fronts simultaneously, so I think focusing on one area is better than nothing.

TheOriginalSteamingNit

I am a man, but have missed why that is important to this discussion.

AmbertheCat

I hold the same logic as you but find it hard to believe in it as the best solution or, at least, an achievable one.

There was a big campaign in favour of comprehensives in the 1970s which reduced the number of grammar schools from 1200 to c. 160 today, many becoming private schools instead.

It seems to me to have been a retrograde step to take schools that had no economic selection, only the 11+ and see them turn private. The "Law of unintended consequences" I suppose.

But it's a myth to say that grammar schools had no economic selection. Not overtly, but we know now that, far from being the beacons of social mobility they are often held up to be, they actually entrenched the status quo (on the whole - there are clearly stories of individual disadvantaged children being well served by them).

Amber I think most of us who have thought long and hard about this, have formed a view which may or may not seem consistent to others, but has internal logic, no?

Whilst in theory I would like all state schools to admit all children, in reality I would really really like children who can't afford private school to access a super selective environment. Or at least to have the option.

And since I'm essentially agreeing to selection on ability, I feel like it would be absurd to then disagree to selection on, say, faith or sex. It's not that I am particularly interested in either, but it would feel churlish of me to deny them to those who are.

Also, yesterday, you asked me what % of comprehensively educated students we would like to see at Oxbridge. That is of course the question! We dance around and around this one and rarely agree.

Some of my colleagues would say that the current balance is about right, with one quarter coming from comprehensives. Whether the remaing three quarters come from state or private is neither here nor there. These are selective schools with highly able pupils who have been taught to the top of their game. Exactly what we're after.

Other colleagues feel that that is nonsense and that comprehensives have an untapped sector of highly able young people, and that the % of comp kids at Oxbridge should be over 50%. That by not tapping those young people we're missing a trick.

What everyone seems to agree on is that whilst we will do what we can to encourage more applications from comprehensives, to make contextualised offers, to offer financial help etc we won't lower our standards to make up for the difficiencies in the comprehensive system. It's a balance.

nit or perhaps mum (apologies) you aksed me yesterday why Oxbridge didn't base its offers on the aptitude tests, rather than grades, interview etc.

Well, I guess, we could say that about any university really.

And I can see the logic of it. Just test all kids and see who has the aptitude for any particular course, then make the offers to them regardless of where they went to school or what they've achieved so far.

Except of course that aptitude tests can only show us aptitude. And students need more than that at university. Much more. We need to know that they will be able to do certain things and have already achieved a certain standard.

This is true of any university, but especially Oxbridge, where you do really have to hit the ground running.

dad it's not relevant that you're a man: it's relevant that you're indulging in a bit of what's often known as 'mansplaining'. Which tends to irritate. Yes, I am against selection of any kind. Yes, I understand that there are many kinds of selection. Yes, I understand that if I liked some forms of selection and not others my position would be problematic.

NOW WHO ON THIS THREAD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

Word I think it was Mum who asked that question, but cheers anyway!

You talk about the unintended consequences Dad164:many of those Grammar schools which went independent when comprehensive education came were only reverting back to what they had always been. They became Direct Grant Grammar Schools post 1944, then went back to being independent. E.g. Abingdon School did this, but the local LEA grammar went into the comprehensive system.