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.

"So if people are anti selection are they in favour of completely comprehensive education (by that I mean no banding of any sort)"

Comprehensive education doesn't mean mixed ability teaching.

It means it caters to the needs of children across the whole ability range. But in different sets.

Good comps set for every subject, thereby offering the right pace of learning to each student in each subject.

So a child who is way ahead of an average Grammar school student in maths but couldn't get into a grammar because of less good literacy, can be educated to their potential in maths while getting more support in literacy.

In my DC's comp they are broadly streamed and then set within and across that for Maths, English, Science, MFL.

Clarinet9

There are lots and lots of publications about social selection at grammar schools between 1944 and 2012+, but this one is quite readable and describes in details the categories of people who were more likely to get their children into grammar schools. These are the same groups that populated free paying secondary schools before 1944, which you could confirm if you were to read something like Walford's book on the history of independent schools (my copy is at work so I can't look it up for you).

Here

Interesting, roughly 12-15% of pupils at grammar schools in the present year have attended independent fee paying prep schools, so to an extent the practice continues.

Sorry, that should have said fee paying secondary schools before 1944.

very interesting Boffin. Tutoring in 1957 Ha Ha.

Points: Secondary modern's from the period of 1946-64 have nothing in common with any school today, so to compare with schools dating from 2000 is wrong.

The report shows that the number of grammar school educated pupils is the same (roughly) as 1979 so after the large scale abolition of the 1970s grammar schools have been allowed to function. The reason being that many parents never wanted their abolition in the first place. It never made the bad schools good, by destroying highly successful grammar schools. I say that as some one educated in a 1980s Secondary Modern school . The reason my school was "shit" was not because of the neighbouring grammar schools ,but because of complex social reasons. The children' s attitude to education and behaviour had nothing to do with failing the 11+ but to do with their families attitude to education and learning.

smokepole - do you not think your school would have been better if the percentage of families with those sorts of attitudes was smaller, i.e. if it had a critical mass of children from engaged families?

I have to laugh at smokepole's suggestion that all grammar schools were 'highly successful' before they were destroyed.

A good many mediocre ones, like the two my brother and I attended, were thankfully destroyed at the same time. It wasn't unknown for either school to churn out people, (supposedly in the top 25% of the ability range), with no O levels, and at least half got less than 5 O levels.

As for Secondary Moderns being full of children for complex social reasons - yes, because they tended to be dumping grounds.

And doesn't it occur to you smokepole that a child's attitude to learning and education might be influenced by their families, so that the 11+ failure was part and parcel of this, not just some co-incidence?

Thankgodimretired, where did you teach?

Having recently retired, it would seem that you have been teaching for over forty years...strange. This is coupled with the fact that your only posts coincide with the long thread on education choices.

Why do you want the views of MNetters?

You'd rather a few failed?

So you'd be happy if a few kids ended up as illiterate adults who felt they had no place in society? You'd be happy if they were left to rot, possibly circling around the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives. I'm sure you'd feel differently if it was your house they burgled. Even more differently if it was your child allowed to fail.

Failing the 11+ had nothing to do with their attitude to education, in fact 30 years ago it was not not nearly as intense as it is now. People just went to which ever school they were sent to. I can't remember even taking the 11+, such was the lack of "importance" attached to it at the time (yet in reality it was more important passing it then then now).

The problem with my school was more about, what you could do to avoid lessons and learning than to try and improve yourself. The coolest people were those who did the least and wagged the most. I was seen as a bit "odd" and exotic there ( being a child of Wealthy parents, who owned Amusement arcades and Pubs) . The most bizarre thing about the school was I was seen as "posh" and a bit of a swot for getting 4 D grades at GCSE in 1990.

The grammar school my "estranged" sister went to , enabled her to get 8 A grade O Levels and 2 A grade A levels (would have been 3 but for her spite and stupidity ). Sister's grammar was and still is a very good school . My old school is now an academy and is good and getting better .

There are three types of children academic top 25-30% children who want to learn and capable with hard work 50% . (This will cause uproar) 20% of kids who are not capable of academic work through either intelligence , attitude or just being "bad" . The problem at my school was not the middle 50%, but the other 20% who made it impossible for those who wanted to learn to do so. The 20% should have been not in my school but in a third type of school.

What would your third type of school for those kids look like, smokepole?

I can't remember even taking the 11+, such was the lack of "importance" attached to it at the time (yet in reality it was more important passing it then then now).

That might have been your experience, but it certainly wasn't mine. The 11+ absolutely dominated the last two years of junior school until the exam was taken. I moved house, quite some considerable distance, and it was the same in both places.

I described the type of school on page 4 of this thread which would suit the 20% or so " community". It would predominately be a school that would first find a type of skill or interest that pupils not able to adapt to a traditional academic curriculum could improve upon. Its mission as a school would be find employment for these youngsters in areas where they showed skills or interest. This could be done by Government giving funding to businesses , who were prepared to take pupils on at 16 who had achieved less than 5 E grades at GCSE (for E.G) . These pupils would still be part of the school until 18 years of age but it would be a joint exercise with the employer .

For every successful Pupil who came though the program , the Government could give the company concerned a cash payment. This could be as follows £1500 for initial employment at (16) £5000 for 5 years employment and £10000 should the pupil make Managerial level in under 6 years.

Failing this approach those kids who do not buy in to it, should just be thrown in to a classroom with bars on the windows and looked doors .
The classroom would contain a large Television screen (belted Down) playing Jeremy Kyle until 3.30 pm Monday- Friday.

how would you define the 20%?

What about the borderline ones?

What about kids who have had a shit start in life but then pull it together ..... how do they re integrate from such a different start ?

What about kids who start good and their lives fall apart, are they demoted to the 20%

Surely PRUs attached to comprehensive schools are a simpler, cheaper and tried and tested approach?

PRU units are about getting the pupil back in to the mainstream classroom, they are not about finding employment or a future for said children.
These children are likely to benefit far more in an environment that shows them a way forward with viable employment opportunities in something they are good at or like. It could be possible that with hard work , that these pupils could be ahead of graduates at 21 .

I thought when you talk borderline you were talking about "borderline" 11+ fail or C/D GCSE passes. The pupils in this 20% (note I don't say bottom, they just require a different education based on employment or skills) would be easy to spot quite early. They would be on the whole ,pupils who show no interest in traditional learning disruptive and bored pupils.

The kids who start "good" and fall apart would be asked " do you want an "Academic or a different type of education". No pupil would be admitted to this third type of schooling unless it was likely they would achieve less than D grades in their GCSEs.

The kids who start with a "Shit" life and want an academic education, will be in the "high school" we are not talking high level ability here just D grade standard.

I think having just watched "Too Tough To Teach" the Ian Mikardo School could be a blueprint as how the third type of school could function. Obviously Ian Mikardo is probably an extreme example, however it is school model that could be adapted for the type of pupils who are lost within a typical academic based education.

thing is I live in a comp area, at the edge of a v rough council estate (most of whose kids go to the local school)
I see absolutely no evidence for your 20% needing separate treatment

a few % are in special schools, a teeny fraction of which are secure

but the vast, vast majority do 4 days of school and one day of college from year 10 - all within the umbrella of the main school so that they are able to remain integrated

sadly parents who have only experienced selective schools seem to have an irrational fear of and lack of understanding of those at the other end of the bell curve

they are not subhuman
its a shame that people like the OP show so little care for them

I certainly think that we don't do vocational education well. This is despite a number of good reports being commissioned and then totally ignored.
However, what I don't agree with is that "not academic = vocational". I just don't think that children/anyone can be split up into sheep and goats in this way.

LaVolcan
As Boffinmum said above, selective schooling was incredibly detrimental to British manufacturing because it equated practical skills with failing the 11+

There should be no split at all between "vocational" and "academic" learning before the age of 16 at the earliest.

All kids should be receiving the same basic core curriculum in the same core learning environment
just that on a Thursday or a Tuesday
some will do extra MFL and extra science
others will do hairdressing or stable management or engine mechanics

keeping them together, understanding each others skills and needs will do more to encourage people to WANT to check out different paths
far more than divisive and demoralising selection at 11.

As I said after results day - I challenge any selective school to get better results from its top 40 academic kids than DD and her friends got.
And they already have the phone number of a good farrier

How many students were in your DD's year group Talkin? (in other words what was 40 students as a percentage of the total?). And what exactly were the marks of those 40? Were they all A? All A/A? Some Bs? If you throw out a challenge, you need to give figures.

TalkinPeace

'As I said after results day - I challenge any selective school to get better results from its top 40 academic kids than DD and her friends got.'

It's not just about results. My DD is in Y9 and is already well stuck into the GCSE material for all subjects. By the time she gets to the 6th form she will have studied above and beyond what the exam syllabi dictate as will all of her contemporaries in selective schools.

Can you say this of your DD and her friends?

agoodinnings By the time she gets to the 6th form she will have studied above and beyond what the exam syllabi dictate as will all of her contemporaries in selective schools. Do you have anything that backs up your claim that every child attending a selective school will have studied above and beyond what the exam syllabi dictate?

I ask this as one of my local selective schools has published a parent survey on their website. One of the main concerns the parents have is that the school is not pushing the more able students enough.

Molio
The stats for my kids comp are as they are
The whole of the group of 40 got A/A* in all 13 of the GCSEs they took.
And they did that with the school contaminated with the sort of pupils that the OP wishes not to interact with at all.

agoodiniings
I do not know and frankly I do not care.
School is not the only source of education for children.
They are only there 1/6 of the time.

The more important issue is that selection does not work for many pupils and it does not appear to have benefitted the UK economy.
Its a good thing that the OP and their ilk have retired.
Now time to retire their prejudiced ideas.

Talkin at DS2 school the top 50 got at least 8 A's out of 9 (I get this data from the recently published "A list" which was drawn up purely on GCSE results) I suspect if you came down to the top 40 I suspect its all As.

Happy
I'm fully aware of what selective schools can do with the kids they consider "decent" enough to pass their selection interviews.

My point is that DCs school did it while teeming with the ones that the OP wants to exclude from access to a decent education.

Selection in state schools has not resulted in tangible overall improvements - especially of the "interview the parents" variety that dinosaurs like the OP prefer.

I was merely trying to point out that schools can serve pupils well without segregating them into silos.

'They are there only 1/6 of the time.' Eh?

Your average school day lasts 7hrs, that's about 50% of a school kid's day, 5 days a week, 30+ weeks a year. That's a lot of time to be in the wrong place.

Serving pupils well is not just about getting them A*s. I don't get how you can be anti selection yet pro setting btw, I guess because it suits your DD well being in the tops sets and all that.

Also, 'Selection in state schools has not resulted in tangible overall improvements.'

This 'experiment' has not really been done apart from in NI where I think you'll find there have been tangible improvements across the board.