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 would think that it was pretty obvious that I have some pretty solid knowledge tbh and very hard to point out where it's weak.

I asked you what you knew of Comprehensives. I don't think you have answered yet.

My knowledge is strongest of the old direct grant system Fine.

and the current system

I beg your pardon, but if you don't really know about the comprehensive system then I don't see how you can say you have solid knowledge.

I think it can be hard to teach the super bright. Quickly bored and restless by nature. Attentions quickly wander if you fail to keep their interest. The super bright aren't perfect models of behaviour. My DH went to a very famous super selective weak teachers left quickly, he clearly remembers two who had no control of the class, the boys almost rioted at times, because they just didn't keep the pace of the lesson quick enough or were sufficiently interesting/challenging they both had some kind break down.
Of course the average or below average are equally as difficult, and those who can get better than expected grades from low achievers should be congratulated, it just takes different skills. Of course in the ideal world you want a teacher who can teach both and those in between as well but the reality is that not all can and teachers like most other professionals should be free to choose an area that suits and interests them and schools should utilise an individuals talents. What ever area an individual chooses doesn't make a better teacher.
I do think my DS could get the same grades in the state sector but having looked carefully at the state sector very carefully at various times in his education including very recently I come away with the same feeling; yes he could do as well but will he? My concern is always that as someone who does become bored very quickly and also as a rather restless person by nature if he were insufficiently challenged/interested Im not convinced he would be a model of behaviour in fact past experience has shown that he wouldn't be. Interestingly on our last careful look at state ed for him, the teacher also said "your going to be bored stiff here". One of the issues we found is that at our local well regarded 6 th form college classes are rarely streamed, so if he'd opted to do an MFL A level for example he would have been in a mixed ability class, where as currently for some of his Pre Us there are 4/5 sets so you are with others of the same ability. I know others won't agree but I personally think this is better. Of course some very bright don't mind and would thrive in a more mixed ability environment if your lucky enough to have choice it's about finding the right place for your individual DC.
Finally I know our fees are high talkin but they not (yet) 40k PA.

I would agree that super-bright can be difficult - in the same way that educating a gifted musician/dancer/sportsperson can be difficult. I have seen this problem with a nephew who is a gifted musician. With the local school, the difficulty was fitting in his music; he tried a specialist music school, but had to board which didn't suit him, so is now being home educated - which seems to be OK.

But I am not sure that it's the wholly super-bright who are being talked about on this thread.

Colchester Royal Grammar School (Super selective) sent 30 to Oxbridge this year, out of a cohort of 180 or so. The Comps around here with larger cohorts send 1 or 2.

LaVolcan I corrected the omission there myself, a few posts up.

I restrict what I say to what I have first hand knowledge about but clearly anyone concerned with any aspect of education has to know a bit about the whole system. People on these threads or indeed anywhere in life can't have expert knowledge on everything and I've already said my knowledge is concentrated on super selective schools, high ability students and university admissions. Others may have the same or something different to contribute. That doesn't mean that what people do have to contribute is nonsense, simply because some other disaffected poster accuses them of not knowing everything. Not knowing everything is very different from knowing nothing.

TalkinPeace has been called up previously by another poster for citing her DH endlessly as though it's her own professional experience, and she didn't like her 'challenge' being met with figures which knocked it down. But the graceful thing at that point would have been to acknowledge that the top forty students in super selectives do seem to achieve significantly better than the top forty students at her DD's old school, not to get ratty about it.

I believe all the evidence shows that there's a place for super selectives because these students do better there than at comps, resources can be concentrated in a way they can't at all ability schools and there's a social and economic purpose to maximising the potential of high ability students too, which goes beyond individual experience, not that that isn't important too.

I'm not going to apologise for pursuing Talkin's challenge Mum. It's appropriate to counter a challenge if what's stated is patently not true.

Mum I've glanced back and can't see where I've said anything about a specific school, let alone the one my children attend or attended. All my comments are general and nowhere do I reference a particular school.

Molio I believe all the evidence shows that there's a place for super selectives because these students do better there than at comps, Unless you have access to a parallel universe, no evidence exists to demonstrate that the children who attend "super selectives" would have performed any differently had they been in any other academic environment.

What's more I seriously question the employment prospects of any individual that relies so heavily on a very specific, exclusive environment. i.e. offers exclusivity to those who attended "super selective schools", in order to perform at their highest potential.

Molio Mum I've glanced back and can't see where I've said anything about a specific school, let alone the one my children attend or attended. All my comments are general and nowhere do I reference a particular school. could you quote where I have stated this to be the case. So far the only reference to schools I have seen you make is "Super selective" which is where you experience seems to be and comprehensives which you seem woefully ignorant about. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise...

Well mum my DH went went to a super selective and a selective prep he thrived in every way and believes in super selective education for the super bright. He knows what a difference it makes. He believes that the "no limits" ethos at his school is one of the things that has made him so good at what he does. In his working life he works with people from all back grounds, nationalities, classes, from some of the worlds richest to very junior staff with little skills bar pushing a broom around, he manages two with learning difficulties and he actively supported their applications for the jobs, he's also in the past encouraged his employer to take on offenders who often with very limited education, he has never had a days unemployment in 25 years and is respected by all.

happygardening He knows what a difference it makes. How does he know what a difference it made? He knows only what he experienced and that he is happy with the outcome. He has no way of knowing that things would have been better for him if he had gone another route unless he had experienced the other route.

I have no problem with people being happy with what they have experienced. I do have a problem with people who blindly insist that their way is best for other people.

MumTrying I'm trying to understand your posts tbh. I've said repeatedly it's the super selective environment I know most about. Is that a problem? I'm not sure my experience of those is diminished because I know significantly less about comps.

I don't think the employment stats for alumni of super selectives bear out what you say Mum. Just reducing it to the personal for a moment, my eldest DD left uni to go straight onto a starting salary of £40k+, rising to £60k after two years hopefully and then sharply after that. Her next sibling down has gone straight into a fully funded PhD (not the same sort of financial reward, admittedly :)). Their peers have secured an array of amazingly interesting and varied jobs, with none that I can think of unemployed. But I bow to your superior knowledge..........

Is there any need to be so abrasive on these threads btw? .

Molio MumTrying I'm trying to understand your posts tbh. Well we have one thing in common then: "I've glanced back and can't see where I've said anything about a specific school, let alone the one my children attend or attended. All my comments are general and nowhere do I reference a particular school". Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what prompted you to post this?

Molio I don't think the employment stats for alumni of super selectives bear out what you say Mum. Feel free to give examples to demonstrate your point.

Your right in a way mum although he makes this comment having observed DS1 experience at a "high achieving" comprehensive.

The point I was trying to make is that you may 'question the employment prospects"of an individual whose relied heavily on an exclusive super selective environment but as I clearly demonstrated it's not been and never has been an issue for my DH. We used used to know many from the same school the vast majority are decent hard working individual and we know now others from similar environments this applies to them.

happygardening the vast majority are decent hard working individual I suspect this had more to do with their success than the fact they went to a super selective school.

Mum in answer to your post of 23.21pm I'd refer you to your previous post of 21.09pm in which you claim 'the only knowledge I demonstrate is of the one my DC attends':

a) I have heaps of DC, not one and
b) I haven't referred to any one particular school anywhere on this thread.

Children learn most from each other. Some bright children like being top dogs at less selective schools, others enjoy the buzz of being challenged by brighter friends and having their experiences widened by them. Some of the brighter ones understandably thrive when most of their school or college or university peer group think at their speed and therefore the teaching is adapted to that. It does n't mean that they can't do well in a mixed work environment in later life, just that they got the most out of their education for their needs.

Molioyou are still making no sense to me: a) I have heaps of DC, not one and I restrict what I say to what I have first hand knowledge about ...I've already said my knowledge is concentrated on super selective schools, high ability students. Nothing you have posted shows any knowledge of comps.

summerends I fully agree :-)

Molio feel free to share you experiences of non selective schools that your heaps of DC attended BTW

Mum in answer to your post of 23.23pm I'd refer you to my post of 23.17pm. Admittedly that's only two concrete examples but it is nevertheless two out of two children in my family who are post graduate and in the job market so a 100% strike rate at a relatively reasonable level. Obviously I could come up with hundreds more examples simply amongst their two school cohorts, but it would be ridiculous to do so. In the same way that it's ridiculous to suggest that super selective kids have a tougher time generally finding a job. Just follow the logic through from more super selective kids getting to top/ RG unis to top/ RG graduates securing the lion's share of competitive jobs. It's just a no brainer. Also, hard work and decency allied to significant ability still probably gives a head start over hard work and decency allied to limited ability, however unfair that may be.

Molio In the same way that it's ridiculous to suggest that super selective kids have a tougher time generally finding a job please feel free to show me any post that suggested this... Now if you have evidence to suggest that they are more successful on an employment level (not entry level BTW), perhaps you would care to share...

Mum I'm calling it a day because the thread is becoming increasingly incoherent but seriously, why on earth are you so strident about my having to be a guru on comps?!

All of my DC went to a super selective school. None went to a comp.

summerends I also agree.

Oh ffs. At 22.44pm you 'seriously questioned the employment prospects' of super selective kids.

I'm off. Goodnight :)

Molio - Mum I'm calling it a day Fair enough