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.

You were able to use "clever" ways to beat the obvious ban of selective schools in Liverpool then. Liverpool now has two of the best state schools including Belvedere. It shows that schools should be able to select children that suit and buy in to the ethos of the school concerned. The other thing that socialists and anti selection people don't get, is that nobody would benefit from closing great schools just out of ideological beliefs.

I'm a bit scared of living in a society that ditches 30% of children into disorderly schools. What on Earth do you think that 30% will turn out like? They would be fairly justified in becoming an enraged underclass, thrown on the scrap heap at 11.

where is the evidence for Chaos in on selective areas

what happens to the kids who do not "pass selection"

note how short the "grammar school halcyon era lasted" (1946 to 1976 fwiw : an utter anomaly in UK schooling)

"having just recently retired from the teaching profession"...I would have thought you would want to put your feet up and not pose a series of questions on a parenting website ??.

Talkin. Three types of schools offering, three different types of education.

1. Grammar offering a highly academic education expecting 90%+ to go on to higher education.

1. High school offering an academic with a vocational bias leading to high level employment at Managerial level through vocational based degrees and training.

1. Community offering high quality sporting opportunities , training skills in much needed careers Catering ,Plumbing, Building. An environment that keeps those that struggle in a typically old fashioned school , motivated this could be supported by local businesses . Football and other sporting clubs could also be involved in offering vocational training .

I know you will criticise my ideas, but you have constantly said we need kids learning skills such as Plumbing and Building. You have also on many occasions stated that some of your best clients are the ones who have achieved the lowest academic qualifications. These clients have in many cases gone on to have a high standard of living despite academic qualifications.

smokepole
I did not have the foggiest about my life choices till I was 23

segregation based on parental prejudice at 11 is a crap way to get the best out of people

Flabbergasted at deeply stupid and ignorant posts on this thread.

"an orderly education"? What- learning how to become an orderly? Not a particularly aspirational ambition, is it?

I don't think neat, methodical education is something to be desired. Spontaneity and being guided by what is inspirational is surely far more desirable.

When every kid in every school sat the 11+ within school time and was allocated a school as a result

However, when I was growing up in Belfast in the early sixties, the non-grammar school that everyone who failed the eleven-plus went to in my area was a total waste of time, no books, no curriculum, just babysitting the kids until they left to work at a factory.

Mintyy, It all started with the OP who is the "recently retired teacher" ;-).

Yes, I know Tally. I was one of the first to respond.

As for my grammar school, even though we were as poor as church mice, we were culturally middle class. There was one boy in my year of 200 students with a working class accent and my did it sound peculiar in that setting.

OP I think you are being given a rather hard time. I also think this kind of thing happens in London more than in the rest of the uk and is increasingly going. Also few people outside of London seem to be aware of the levels of complexity of selection in London, particularly faith schools. I went to a successful catholic secondary in London in the late 90s/early nouguties that did all the things you mentioned. Similar situation to oratory in fact.

I think this would have been great discussion amount London-based parents about 15 years ago!

smokepole I think it is important to mention that until fairly recently Belvedere and Liverpool College were both private schools. They are now publicly funded academies which seek to maintain their private school ethos with tax payers funding it. The effect of changing to academies will not yet be seen in results as the full set of academy-only entrants has yet to filter through the school. It is misleading therefore to include Belvedere as one of the top state schools in my opinion.

Additionally, as per my previous post, Blue Coat's results are obviously impressive but not significantly different from the non-selective schools in South Liverpool when you look at the outcomes for high attainers. Considering the difference in demographics, I'm not sure that does support the argument for selection.

The thing is that school (the wrong school?) can turn perfectly nice DC into something else entirely. I was very surprised to see a quite frankly loutish schoolboy in town with his girlfriend looking very respectable. He was a bottom set kid who was quite possibly living down to his expectations in school :(

agoodinnings The thing is that school (the wrong school?) can turn perfectly nice DC into something else entirely. I don't believe a school is solely responsible for "loutish" children, parents can have an impact as can pre-teen and teenage hormones.

Oh yes of course prior to grammar schools girls were all nuclear scientists and brain surgeons and it was their introduction that saw them all barefoot and tied to the kitchen sink. Girls have been failed by the 'system' for far longer and in a far greater way than by grammar schools.
do you have any evidence to support your statement that in 1946 most new entrants to grammar schools were from families that could afford fees?

Mexican that is surely a reflection of your area though? when they were first started I am sure that there were many working class children whose lives were changed by their schooling, where in laws lived I get the impression most of their school was working class the doctors/lawyers kids were all privately educated. (off topic but isn't the rise of the 'middle class' a relatively recent thing wasn't it previously working vs upper split mainly along income lines with a smaller middle and little interclass mobility)

the problem is that people learn how to use the system to their advantage and do so, 'twas ever thus and presumably always will be must have some relation to Darwinism and survival of the fittest lol!

I have no idea how to get around it, my cousin lives in part of the states where they have random school admissions (akin to a lottery I guess) and the kids are bussed across the city at the age of 5 to achieve that

their solution

they moved

'problem' is that you will never agree to get those who care about their kids education to willingly send their kids to a school they perceive is not good enough without complaining or trying to do something about it.

The statistics are in part here
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04252.pdf
and here
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01398.pdf

Well I have given those a quick scan and I can see nothing in either one which supports this:

I would add to that post that demographically speaking the kids who went to grammar schools as a whole were those whose parents would have been able to pay for secondary education prior to 1944

(I've just used cut and paste not sure of any other way to do it)

Which is after all part of your attack on my comment (which was taken out of context since I was clearly using an example to demonstrate the problem with making sweeping generalisations i.e. all of this all always and never stuff!)

I like the selecting by height idea one of mine was in a school play the other day and they stood him on a chair, he didn't seem to mind a jot but I think I would have been happier if all the speaking parts needed chairs in order to be seen by the audience.

So if people are anti selection are they in favour of completely comprehensive education (by that I mean no banding of any sort) do we get rid of elite universities too?

I won't pretend I know the answer but I hate the current 'selection by parental income' in my previous area

I am not in favour but how do most people view selection by school opinion?

(I have work to do so won't be back on here until later-sorry)

Clarinet9
I am utterly in favour of comprehensive state education :
not sure what you mean about banding
comprehensive means all of the children in the same building being taught at a level appropriate for them
(so some kids do 13 GCSEs, some do 5 and an apprenticeship)

Once all subjects are optional : after 16 in other words, then it makes sense to have facilities appropriate to choices

and as University is neither compulsory nor chosen by all, it has nothing to do with discussions of segregating children at age 11 according to very narrow criteria.

OP
You have still not answered the question about what sort of schools the kids your system rejects should go to.

Ethelb, where were you at school? A number of my colleagues taught at schools of that ilk during the same period, 90's-noughties.

I can say with some confidence that the non-selective schools in South London never came close to the highly selective London faith and grammar schools let alone the independents.

McDonalds/Harris Sports Academy is as good as it gets for most...shame.

What does this mean "never came close to"?

If you mean in terms of gcse results, then that's hardly surprising is it .

If you mean something else, could you elaborate?

West London Free School open day.

'We are looking for children who will relish an academic education.'

'Parents are expected to support their children with their homework.'

'This is not a school for those who expect to be spoon fed.'

'Please think carefully before you apply here.'

Which I guess translates as 'If your little darling has had behavioural or learning difficulties at primary, or if you are not confident academically yourself, please apply elsewhere.'

There's 'non-selective', and then there's making it very clear what kind of child and family will 'fit in'.

Banding can mean splitting applicants into ability bands and accepting a % from each band to get a genuinely comprehensive intake. It can be used (possibly with a lottery for those places) to reduce the impact of social selection through things like house prices.