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.

"if your no longer teaching your no longer a teacher"
Interesting point and not that black and white I suspect. A doctor still calls himself a doctor even if he's retired, my neighbour a retired high court judge is referred as Judge X.
I also think that psychologically you remain a teacher, policeman, nurse social worker or whatever even after you've retired and are no longer practising.

I'm sure you have visited every academy to back up your statement.

I'd guess that you have too much time on your hands. But I am really struggling to believe that you were a teacher and have retired.

thankgodimretired you know the ones I'm referring to. Not, not really. You made a statement about all academies. Perhaps you meant the likes of Watford Boys Grammar (an academy), Watford Girls Grammar (an academy).

My DS1 was at an academy I'm no great fan of it despite it's positively glowing ofstead report and being the counties top performing school. I know the pupils have respect for the staff and that they don't come into lessons behaving in an aggressive manner, eating fast food (we're rural so there's no where to buy it round here) and with corns (what on earth are they, the only corn I know grows in our fields) in their hair.

Over the course of my career I've told many kids whether they're good enough to go on to university, those that have been have gone on to wonderful things by and large.

There's a complete absence of plain speaking on forums such as this.

It's all wishy washy namby pamby stuff.

happygardening with corns (what on earth are they, the only corn I know grows in our fields) in their hair. food fight perhaps :-)

Many kids come into lessons with 'corn hairstyles bloods'(that's how they speak)

thankgodimretired - that's how they speak who?

thankgodimretired can I just ask what a child's hair style has to do with their ability to learn and be educated (unless their fringe is too long for them to see what they are writing etc.)?

I thought corns were those things you get on your feet when your shoes don't fit why would you get them in your hair or want your hair looking like corns you find on your feet? Where does the blood come from?
I know I live under a nice peaceful rural stone but I'm struggling to follow this thread.

Mumtrying perhaps if you've got corns growing in your hair like the ones you get on you feet the pain of them being their effects your concentration?

happygardening - Mumtrying perhaps if you've got corns growing in your hair like the ones you get on you feet the pain of them being their effects your concentration?

Googled hair corns I learn a new thing every day. I've always loved cornrows (the correct term it would seem) I've always called them extensions. I think they're very neat and tidy and on many women/girls stunning. As someone with very high maintenance hair they must be very low maintenance. OP what is your problem with cornrows?

It is clear from the OPs generalisations, inaccuracies, prejudices and selective evasiveness that all is not as she would have us believe. If OP is so "glad" to have retired, why waste time posting on a namby pamby website. Perhaps OP would like to reply to questions that she is (not very skilfully) avoiding .

And what happened to the ones that you threw on your own little scrapheap?

Have you ever been to one of the academies you refer to?

Are you going to answer any of the questions I have asked?

Talkin you're really, really being slippery here. How many kids in your DD's Y11? Is it so hard to say? And are the 13 GCSEs all full GCSEs?

Meanwhile I'll fess up as a selective state school mum, very much in favour of selection. My kids have 59 A* and 22A between them at GCSE (a nod to Word re. conflation!). And five at Oxford/ Cambridge. Had they gone to a local comp their outcome would have been very different and thus their future would look different. I'm hoping some might go out and make a difference socially too - selection isn't purely about the individual. One DC in particular is at the top of his year doing Medicine. We need research doctors discovering cures. Another DC is hopefully on her way to a future as a lawyer in Human Rights. We need lawyers defending those rights. There's a much wider programme here, and it's very clear that we need the brightest to do their best for the greater good. This idea that all kids need to be reduced to the same middling agenda in schools is not actually serving the greatest good. It's a small minded agenda.

Molio in the absence of Talkin's response, my anecdotal impression from friends and family with DC in the Hampshire state system that a full house of A* in top stream DCs is relatively rare compared to those in grammar schools in nearby Reading.

PS is a very good sixth form college, has the reputation of attracting the academic with many of those doing ''facilitating' A levels having A/A at GCSE so actually selective for those subjects. I have just googled their results, about 34% A A grade A levels compared to about 65% in nearby Reading boys grammar school. That's very good for PS but includes a fair number of non-facilitating' A levels.
If you look at a subject like Further maths that would be expected to attract a similar ability range of students in both schools, 84% of Reading school got A* A grades in 2013 compared to about 50% in PS this year. For those who are interested in Oxbridge offers as a crude measure, 40-50ish get offers from PS from a year group of about 1800 ie 2-3%.

I think from that I would n't be persuaded that the brighter children in Hampshire do as well at school as those in state selective systems.
However it does n't mean that they won't do as well or better later on in life and end up in the professions you describe.

My children go to a completely comprehensive school with no streaming or setting either. Also no rules about hair styles (or uniform for that matter). Some of the children aren't even white! Mohicans are rather more likely than corn braids (the biggest minority group here is First Nations, who as a group are both socially and educational disadvantaged due to previous fairly horrific government policies and endemic racism).

Of my children's classmates some will go on to university, some will become apprentices and some will go straight into jobs. It doesn't damage my children to have friends who want to be mechanics even though they are academic high flyers. They have friends who live with parents who lead quite chaotic lives, friends who are in care or who live with grandparents due to alcoholism or drug abuse and also friends whose parents are doctors, teachers, university professors, lawyers etc.

I'm sure that their experiences at school are different than if we had stayed in London and sent them to a private selective school (mainly to avoid the sex or faith selection options we had locally) but I am very happy that we moved. Good comprehensive schooling can work for all children.

Oh and luckily for them my children won't have to take GCSEs, A levels etc as virtually all attainment is measured by continuous marking (even at university).

Molio selection isn't purely about the individual. One DC in particular is at the top of his year doing Medicine. We need research doctors discovering cures. Another DC is hopefully on her way to a future as a lawyer in Human Rights. We need lawyers defending those rights. There's a much wider programme here I fully agree with this. However, assuming the "wider programme" is successful employment, putting access to these jobs aside do you think your children will be able to perform better in them because they went to a Grammar/selective?

If children must be in a selective environment in order to perform to their full potential, will they also need to work in a company who only recruits the same in order to meet their full potential in the work place?

OP can you clarify what you mean by 'corns in their hair'?

Oh good, the OP has added racism to her long list of prejudices.

Molio, how do you know the outcome for your children would be very different if they'd gone to a comp? I'm getting more than a little tired of this 'comprehensive schools teach to the middle' (or, worse, 'comprehensive schools teach to the lowest common denominator') crap. It's patently untrue, as numerous people with children in comprehensive schools have explained on many, many threads. Why do some people continue to claim it is?

Amber: I suspect their experience is of Kent 'comprehensives'. While they are not like the Secondary Moderns of the 1950s, they are still not comprehensives.

My old school is now a million times better as a comprehensive than it ever was as a grammar school. It's fortunate that it's in an area where there are no nearby grammar schools or independent schools to cream off a certain percentage of the more academic/better behaved.

FWIW I strongly suspect that the OP is a he

Molio
My DD is at Peter Symonds I live on the edge of Southampton. Work it out and look it up.

"there's a complete absence of plain speaking on forums such as this"

What would you like to speak plainly about?

'Corn hairstyles blood' (that's how they speak)

Please feel free to speak plainly