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.

Molio Oh ffs. At 22.44pm you 'seriously questioned the employment prospects' of super selective kids - No I questioned the employment prospects of kids who could only reach their full academic potential if they were in a "super selective" academic environment.

Molio I know dc often seem quite normal to parents whatever they are like, but top in year at Oxford medicine is likely to be off the bell curve by most definitions.

summerends the 'double counting' latin GCSE was introduced about 3 or 4 years ago by one exam board (at least) in recognition that Latin as it was previously was judged significantly harder than other subjects, so not really dishonest.

TalkinPeace your dd's schools results are a fair way removed from those of a typical comp, so whether or not they stack up against the results of a selective school, it's not right to use them to justify the comprehensive system. If you had had to have sent your dd to your closest one, you may have had a more realistic view of them.

I struggle to find any common ground amongst all the opposing views and complexities on these repeating threads (being the state, private, grammar debate threads).

Is there any? (apart from finding me objectionable)

frogs I was going to let sleeping dogs lie but since you raise this again . As I said before, it is a trivial point in the discussion but due to my almost 'OCD' tendencies for facts it me
TalkinP. ...... Latin Lang, Latin Lit ....... all GCSE/iGCSE (the Latins)
'Inaccuracy' as you cannot get 2 separate iGCSEs from Latin. Talkin then changed the exam board from iGCSE a couple of times finishing with OCR (GCSE not iGCSE).
I know OCR do a short and full GCSE course but that surely is not two full GCSEs as the short course leads onto the full course. However I admit there may be some subtlety that I am missing.

I referred to 'intellectual dishonesty' but that was relating to previous tactics of 'ducking and diving' to reinforce an argument rather than look at the evidence.

I agree that Molio's family are off the scale (they would fascinate advocates of eugenics) and particularly the 'first of Oxford medicine' and human rights lawyer would have likely have achieved that from reasonable comprehensive as well superselective since they obviously also have loads of drive.
However that does n't negate the point that they probably got more out of the superselective environment, even if only more friends who were on the same trajectory.

mum you have repeatedly challenged molio about her experience of comprehensive education and I agree your manner is rather abrasive. I'm curious to know how much experience you have of super selective education? As you clearly don't support the concept I'm interested to know if you've sent your DC's to a super selective school in either sectors.
It may suit your prejudices to state that those who need a super selective to thrive are likely to have employment issues but as I said this has not been my experience in fact the complete opposite. We know many who've been educated at super selectives (primarily in the independent sector) all bar one who is on the spectrum, they work in a wide variety of occupations and have been successful by all measures.
I struggle to understand why you are so black and white about comprehensive versus super selective education, surely as each child is an individual with a different personality most parents (assuming they have a choice) choose the school that they feel best suits their child.

happygardening As you clearly don't support the concept I did state my position on this as being:

I believe the argument for selective schools is stronger where there is a surplus of schools places. However, in areas where there is a shortage of places, I really do have to question how this can ever really be justified. without a doubt, in this situation, children with lower academic abilities are loosing out. I don't believe this says that I am against super selectives.

I have questioned specific points raised in support of them. This is based purely on the fact that I do not agree that a bright child can only be educated to their full potential by attending such a school.

My experience of super selectives is purely based on discussions with friends who have DCs attending one of them.

Where I have taken issue with molio is when she makes statements about comprehensives e.g. they [superselectives] do need a different sort of teacher to the sort who might be fine for a comp.

How anyone can generalise about the 3 500 (+) odd comprehensives is beyond me, so it's impossible to say what sort of teacher might be fine for a comprehensive.

There is IMO an argument for the really highly able, plus sportspeople, musicians, artists etc. to be educated differently, but I am not sure that the remaining grammar schools are dealing with this top 1% or so. (If so, why would we see anguished threads on MN for Tiffin tutors, and children being tutored since year 4?)

I'm not sure anyone has said that the super bright can only be educated to their full potential by attending super selectives (admittedly I haven't reread the whole thread) and as was point our by talkin up thread I accept that my DS could achieve the same exam results at our local 6th form college. But for me education is not just exam results. But if you are lucky enough to have a choice either due to you location or bank balance without a doubt many children enjoy the kind of learning environment that some super selectives can provide.

Lavolcan if as molio ascertains super selectives need a "different" kind of teacher this doesn't necessarily mean that by being different they are superior to those who teach in comprehensive schools. Maybe they just have a different skill set. I just don't have a problem with teachers specialising in the super bright or those with learning difficulties, some want to work in comps in deprived area other nice rural comps with primarily MC children. All I'm sure require different skills. What is your problem with each area requiring different teachers?

happy If that is what she had said, I wouldn't have had a problem. It's the 'might be fine for a comp' that I took her to task for, when she has no knowledge of comprehensives.

As an aside: I was just looking up the 6th form entrance requirements for two schools.

8 GCSEs grades A* – C, two of which must be English Language and Mathematics; at least 4 should be Grade B and all should be from full GCSE courses. These should be achieved in a single sitting.

Students taking four AS subjects require 344 GCSE points in their highest 8 GCSEs (this equates to
an average of 4Bs and 4Cs or an average of 43 points). Students must have C grades or above in both GCSE English Language and GCSE Mathematics.

Please tell me, which is the superselective and which the comprehensive?

lavolcan molio corrected what she meant. I notice you didn't take umbrage with the poster who said any old teacher who wasn't asleep is fine for bright kids.

I haven't the faintest idea.
At my DS's super selective you require a minimum of 6 A's at IGCSE to be allowed to continue into the 6th form. The first draft of the "A list" (potential Oxbridge candidates) has just been released the 50 names on it have all achieved 8 or more A*s at IGCSE. I know that 6 A's is the minimum requirement for many other super selectives in the independent sector some require higher even higher grades.
Perhaps it's fair to say there are super selectives and super selectives?
I agree that the comment fine for a comp is a pretty patronising thing to say all children what ever their ability and in both sectors need teachers who are top quality inspiring and dedicated.

Word I missed that - but no, it's not acceptable.

But my stance is taking issue with those who think that all comprehensives are the same, and can't challenge able children. When an example is given, this is put down as an aberration.

My middle son is at a grammar, and looking around schools again now for ds3, have to say I'm very impressed by the teachers as the local comprehensive. At my son's grammar they're pretty much left to get on with it themselves, the teachers at the local comp seem much more engaged, and available to the students.

So yes 'fine for a comp' very patronising (and I don't even have a child at a comp).

lavolcan

I can see you feel very strongly and wish to defend the comprehensive model.

What surprises me though, is how this manifests itself as a complete denial that there is any issue of whether the highest ability children are well served within it.

You see the discussion of this problem as a critisism, yet all the educationalists I know see it more as an observation of an obvious and inherent problem. Not a problem of anyone's making, but a problem none the less.

The concern has been rumbling for as long as I can remember and is recognised by every highly selective university I know.

It was also recognised by the Sutton Trust and by the government.

How we deal with the problem is an ongoing discussion and there will be lots of different ideas, but the flat refusal to engage by those fervently in support of comprehensive education is odd. I don't know any other sphere of life where people aren't constantly seeking to improve their services and systems by first identifying problems and then seeking to solve them.

LaVolcan results of schools like Tiffin, considering the number of children they select from, are n't that brilliant by A level results (looking at the Guardian table of A / A* grades. Actually nor are some of the other superselectives mentioned above. So either the selection is wrong or they are not teaching to potential or they are focussing more on other attributes.
Stating the obvious but superselection or, even more in the case of some Kent grammars -selection, is not enough to create a good environment for the bright.

What surprises me though, is how this manifests itself as a complete denial that there is any issue of whether the highest ability children are well served within it.

And yet, when I give examples of highly able children who have been well served by their comprehensives schools, this is always dismissed as an aberration - leafy, middle class intake etc. etc.

Because these examples don't show us what is happening on a macro level.

There will always be children who buck the trend.

However, that doesn't prove the trend doesn't exist.

If the comprehensive system were able to overcome this problem then there wouldn't be such a lot of outreach work going on. There wouldn't be the introduction of measures from OFSTED to try to address this problem. There wouldn't be research.

And parents of very able children wouldn't seek out selection education.

I'm agreeing with LaVolcan. What really impressed me about the local comp (visited during a school day last week with ds3) was that they seemed to take a very individual approach to each child. - So I see no reason why high achievers shouldn't benefit from that. My middle son's grammar however doesn't show that much evidence of an individual approach. I have no issues with the grammar school btw, ds2 is very happy there - but I was mega impressed by the comprehensive teachers and the support they offer all students.

The value added score for the comp is far higher as well btw (and this comp have a very mixed intake).

I corrected 'fine for a comp' almost instantly, as soon as the stupidity of the phrasing was pointed out. So sloppy yes but patronising no, and I've explained clearly what I mean about different skills. There's probably not much mileage left there for attack.

TheWordFactory What surprises me though, is how this manifests itself as a complete denial that there is any issue of whether the highest ability children are well served within it. In some instances, better serving the needs of the highest ability children has resulted in disadvantaging others an example of this as I have previously stated:

I live in an area where the brightest get to choose from 7 schools (8 if you include the super selective). Those children with a lower academic ability have no choice, there is one school or wait and see where you end up.

mum that is a very fair point to raise and worth a discussion.

The balance between providing appropriate education for the highest ability, as opposed to the majority. Saying actually we need to be pragmatic here.

But that is a whole ball park away from the plethora of posters who deny the problem at all.

word I'm interested that highly selective universities, the Sutton trust and the government recognise that the highest ability children are poorly served within the comprehensive model.
We have at various times in my DS's school career looked at the non selective state sector, in four different LEA's, every time we've been openly advised by teachers not to move my DS. In fact our reason for moving him to a boarding prep was because we were categorically told by the governors of the nice primary school he was at was that they had no interest in stretching and challenging him. When I state this on here I'm that this is a one off or perhaps a 4 off and that most non selective state schools can stretch and challenge those of highest ability.
I suppose the problem lies in the definition of "high ability". My DS is generally in 0.2% of the population but for math he's right off the bell curve. Who makes the decision that child A is high ability and child B is very bright? Will parents try and tutor to hoping to show their DC is high ability? Are there enough high ability children in an area to form a school particularly in rural areas? Not all high ability children will want to go to a school geared up for their needs. Perhaps separate units attached to non selective schools are needed.
Part of the problem is that high ability is associated in many peoples minds with better, IME of being married to one and having high ability DS both whom I personally adore and knowing well three or four with a very high ability it doesn't necessarily make you a better person, a different person sometimes yes but not better. High ability is also associated in the minds of many parents with better job outcomes, as I've said up thread most we know who have a high ability have done well in their careers but I accept that does not apply to all, also sadly not all have form successful long term relationships or made good parents. Although of course this applies to all abilities.
We are obsessed in the country with academic results this seems to be the only measure we have to work out how successful our children are, we fail to look at health, emotional development, and good old fashioned plain decency, and tolerance of others. This morning on the radio we hear about what a decent man Alan Henning was, his enormous generosity to others who let's face it he had nothing in common with, this is a quality I would like to see more off, it's importance being ranked by parents and schools as of equal value as exam results etc.

TheWordFactory But that is a whole ball park away from the plethora of posters who deny the problem at all. could the mind set of "a bright child will do well where ever they go" be the stumbling block? (I do not share this view BTW)