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 don't think that anyone has denied that some comprehensives are better than others, and I think I have said that just calling a school a comprehensive doesn't necessarily make it one.

The response then needs to be, 'how do we raise the standards of the poorer ones', not 'there are always children who buck the trend' - which rather confirms my opinion, stated above, that when an example of a good comprehensive is given, it's dismissed as an aberration.

Value added is far more likely to be higher in a comp because of the relatively high baseline at which kids start in grammars in Y7.

La Volcan , I am looking to move from the Dover area so have been looking at different entry requirements for sixth from grammar schools. The requirements vary hugely, even when comparing two schools that might have similar average A level grades. Some grammar schools will admit with just 5C grades at GCSE others require 54 points, the equivalent of 6 A and 2 B grades. The average though seems to be 4 or 5 B grades , that being the minimum requirement to study at AS level (What happens when they Go?). Southend High (Girls ) have not released their Sixth Form Prospectus for next year ,Probably because they have not got a clue about entry requirements.

Well imo value added is probably also higher at the local comp because from what I've observed the teachers put in more effort (as I said my middle son is at the grammar).

I'm an Oxbridge graduate, have taught across the spectrum from very able to those who are struggling. It is far easier to teach classes of more able children than those who are struggling. IMO the really good teachers are needed at the schools with very mixed abilities. A levels aren't rocket science. Pupils at superselectives don't require special teachers - just someone with a basic grasp of the curriculum. To suggest these kids require some sort of specialist teacher to nurture their vast intellect and ensure the poor creatures don't get bored is ridiculous.

An no chips on my shoulder, we've used state primary, private primary, special & grammar schools to date, and are considering grammar, comprehensive and free for ds3 for secondary (trekking around them all).

For value added, when you compare a genuine comprehensive with a grammar you are not comparing like with like - you would need to take the tops sets of the comprehensive so that you are matching the intakes. What would be the alternative? Take the SATS results on entry and match the two cohorts? This has its problems because some primary schools are known to game the system.

Iirc LaVolcan there is a big table each year which gives you value added scores according to low middle or high achievers (according to SATS results). Iirc - I'll check again now we're back into thinking about transition to secondary - the local comp had a better value added score for the high achievers as well (when compared to the grammar school ds2 is at). Having looked at them again recently I am convinced this is because of the very individual approach they take with each child.

jimjams imputing the idea of 'vast intellect' is absurd. No-one suggest kids at super selectives have 'vast intellects'. My kids certainly don't. But these kids are bright to extremely bright and they do need stretching. If the purpose was purely to knock out an A level or four then of course that could be done with relative ease. But it's blindingly obvious that a dull middle of the road teacher from a dull middle of the road uni with a dull middle of the road degree won't be able to stretch or challenge the brightest. Simply sticking to the syllabus would most likely bore these kids to tears in any event. As I said before, attempting to define 'best' in terms of a teacher is fatuous. All credit to those who can teach all abilities but there are significantly more teachers out there in the pool who can teach the middle and lower end of the ability range well or even superbly but aren't up to teaching the very top end - not sufficiently at least. It's not an issue at KS3 especially, but it is a bit of an issue at KS4 and a significant issue at KS5. You yourself are in a minority in the profession being an Oxford grad; I don't think you can reasonably generalise - you're looking at it from a very singular perspective.

But it's blindingly obvious that a dull middle of the road teacher from a dull middle of the road uni with a dull middle of the road degree won't be able to stretch or challenge the brightest

Do you have any idea what you sound like?

Bloody phone

jimjams the fact that you think teachers of A levels only need a basic grasp of the curriculum for any ability cohort, let alone high ability, tells me your opinion here is hardly well thought out.

Do you know what you sound like jimjams?

mum are you saying that it's better to not serve the needs of highest ability children (whose needs aren't properly being served anyway but I accept attempts might be being made in so e places) and thus not disadvantage others, who are of course the majority?

Molio a dull middle of the road teacher I'm inclined to think that such a teacher is unlikely to get the best academic performance from a child of any ability.

Molio But it's blindingly obvious that a dull middle of the road teacher from a dull middle of the road uni with a dull middle of the road degree won't be able to stretch or challenge the brightest.

Would such a duffer be able to teach anyone? Or are you trying to suggest that a good degree from a good university automatically means a good teacher? It doesn't.

but there are significantly more teachers out there in the pool who can teach the middle and lower end of the ability range well or even superbly

On what do you base this assumption? Do you know what skills the teachers out there have?

Sorry, cross post.

Word Factory - my point is that there's nothing hugely difficult about teaching A levels. It does not require a super-teacher to teach the very bright. If a teacher is not capable of teaching A levels to the super bright they are not capable of teaching them full stop.

The one advantage I found in teaching very bright boys with a degree from Oxford (& it was always the boys that caused the problems) was that it stopped the arrogant amongst them wasting half their lesson trying to trip me up (as a young, female teacher in my mid 20's) and meant they listened to what I was saying. I'm sure someone from a middle of the road university :rolls eyes: could have delivered the same curriculum - they may have struggled to get the class to listen to them, but that would quite possibly have been due to disruption from arrogance.

Incidentally I was 'ahead' of my Biology teacher when she was coaching me for Oxford entrance exams as we had in those days (in terms of things I'd read & was reading - I'm sure she was ahead of me in How To Pass An A Level). It wasn't a problem, she guided my reading, suggested practice essays, organised mock interviews at the local poly & prepared me well.

Them being A levels.

I am rummaging through piles of washing trying to find black jeans as I write this

happygardening - mum are you saying... I can't quite figure out how my posts have led you to ask this question TBH.

No I am most certainly not saying that.

What I will say is stop focusing solely on one subset. There are issues across the board e.g. children with SEN for example.

happygardening are you saying that the brightest of the bright children should be given priority over children in other ability ranges?

happygardening whose needs aren't properly being served anyway But I thought your DC's were? Are you not happy with your DCs school?

Yes I do know exactly what it sounds like, or rather what I sound like, but I'm not going to be too precious about it. All universities aren't equal and all teachers and their abilities aren't equal. I don't think it's that controversial.

Mum 'duffer' is way down the scale from the sort of credentials I'm describing. I think some people here may be woefully optimistic about the pool of teachers out there, which isn't to say that there aren't masses and masses of excellent teachers. It's just to say there unfortunately there aren't masses and masses who can stretch and challenge very able 17 and 18 years olds and keep things going at a consistently fast pace. That's particularly true in certain subjects, where there's a massive shortage generally, not just for the top end.

there

Yes mum I agree. The idea there are 'high achievers' and 'others' - as one mass is laughable. That's why I like the local comp (that none of my children go to) - they really do seem to take a very individual approach. I was impressed. I felt they valued all students from those with pretty significant SN up to the high achievers.

But valuing all pupils isn't the same thing as providing properly.

I was at a lovely comp last nigh. Just lovely. Bright, welcoming, warm. Lovely teachers, lovely kids.

But the reality for them, is that the highest ability DC are just not a priority. There are far bigger fish to fry.

Like you jimjams the view was very much that this cohort was the easy one. The teachers didn't have to be the best ones. They accepetd this quite openly.

And frankly, I could see it from their point of view. There are only so many hours in a day and only so many resources.

I'm also intrigued jimjams as to why you sent your son to a super selective if you don't believe there is any need for special provision for the highly able?

And why you've posted so many positive things about the school in the past?

Well tbh you're basing your opinion on an open day visit I think you said didn't you jimjams? Which is fine and it may well be the case that this comp is indeed incredibly good at treating its students as individuals. But why should it follow that super selectives treat their students as one amorphous mass of league table cannon fodder?. From a purely personal parental perspective my eight children - all very, very different in terms of character, and four of each gender - having always been treated as individuals with the teaching staff 'getting' them very astutely and dealing with them accordingly. It's not either/ or.

How many schools are there that cater purely for the needs of the lowest academic achievers (primary and secondary level)?