Please can someone answer this simple question about state selective schools?

Of all the types of schools I mentioned, probably the best are the 'Chelmsford' grammar schools when everything is taken in to account. I think the education Niece 1 got and Nephew 1 is getting is better than even what Niece 2 is getting at her girls boarding school. DD2 and DS Kent grammar schools are a bit 'ordinary' for grammar schools in terms of achievement and Russell group numbers.

The make up of 'east Kent's' grammar schools is not that selective at all, there has to be something wrong with the process if my clearly academic DD1 failed with a combined score of 380. My DD1 achieved far better A2 results than the 3 girls who got in to the grammar from her primary. DD2 was deemed selective 'just' she would have got nowhere near the typically more selective West Kent grammar's yet now is on course for 4A* and 5A grades so is clearly a 'grammar' school girl.

The problem is the system in Kent at the moment is 'biased' towards Private Prep schools , there is little help given by Primary schools (by law) towards the 11+.

The grammar I went to was "super selective" and took the highest scoring children wherever they lived. I was not in a grammar school area and travelled to it. There were no issues with having to live near the school to get a place. To me this is the fairest and best way as desirable postcodes are irrelevant.

I am not in Kent but I think possibly some people's issue with that system may be that they select too many children, meaning the grammar pupils are not necessarily even that exceptional and they cream off too many bright pupils from the other schools. However I do think something similar to this happens in lots of areas, just with people going private rather than grammar.

"half a dozen kicking off in the lesson, the handful of clever kids desperately keeping a low profile "

Not a picture I recognise in DS's S London comp, either. There are many (as in a representative number) of clever kids, some from the kind of family background LQueen and jbx seek to closet themselves amongst, some from those they are trying to avoid. Being clever / getting good grades is actually seen as being something to aspire to, and there are good friendships across sets / streams. Behaviour is well managed and vulnerable children are well supported.

I think that these days, when the Grammars and super-selective are socially selective in a way they were not in the Golden Age of grammars, a GOOD comp is a better facilitator of social mobility than a grammar system.

But then the phrase 'social mobility' - it's a bit outdated, isn't it? Surely we are after educational mobility, in terms of people not being constrained by the educational limits of parents? That young people of all classes and demographics be educated to the top of their potential?

Because it doesn't work. And most people seem to be unhappy about it.

Can someone explain why they think that the Kent system is flawed ?

I also don't understand why people on both sides of the debate talk as if grammar schools really do represent the top 20% or 5% or whatever proportion they take in that area, and what's left in the comprehensives is therefore the bottom 80%/95% and therefore we have to call them secondary moderns. It's just nothing like that clearcut.

There are the kids who don't pass the 11+ but could have done, the ones who don't want or whose parents don't want them to go to the grammars, plus the ones who pass who shouldn't really have done.
Then there's the fact that even in fully comprehensive areas a large number of the brighter kids will be creamed off by the private schools, so the mix you get in the comprehensive depends partly on what private schools there are in the area - many of the grammar school kids would have gone to private if there hadn't been a grammar, so they'd never have been part of the comprehensive school mix anyway.

Mumtrying - I've no idea what it's like at laQueen's primary but certainly for the one my DCs were at, during the time I was interested (so, the last 6 cycles) it was easy to predict which kids would get into our superselective. The most that have ever got in was 4. It's usually 1 or 2 and most people (not just staff, but parents and kids too) could have picked them out by about year 3. They all really stood out from an early age. Some years nobody got in and that wasn't a surprise either (the first year of success - Dd1's year - encouraged more applications in subsequent years).

Do grammars really bother to set that much? I went to a very good girls' grammar and they divided us into 4 sets for maths and 2 for French, and everything else was mixed.

Specialist teachers teaching with specialised rrsources targeted manageable sized groups. Not groups of 35 - with half a dozen kicking off in the lesson, the handful of clever kids desperately keeping a low profile while the teacher sweats and really just provides crowd control.

And while schools sweat so frantically to get pupils to attain that magic C grade at GCSE, then the far ends of the spectrum will drift

Until very recently I taught in a rather unremarkable bog standard comprehensive/secondary modern. My position in that school meant that I visited many other schools in the country. I have also taught in inner city schools in deprived areas. I just do not recognise this picture of a classroom. Schools are also judged on the progress that pupils make, not their A* to C rate.

Our school had bullying, I cannot remember dealing with bullying about merits and who was good at maths.

Our local girls' grammars have much more of a problem with bullying, I would never send my girls there, even if I approved of grammar schools.

At a grammar, the 'top set' is comprised of say, the top 20% of pupils who are already ( supposedly) in the top 20% of academic ability.

So they should be more than one grade ahead. Actually they should be more than that because the local comp/HS next to a grammar all the kids should (if the system worked) be better than the top set at the comp.

It implies the comp are doing better than the grammar, have better teachers and are more encouraging.

The simple answer to the question asked by the OP is that there's the same average spread of children and ability in areas, regardless of the schools, so you'll get broadly the same results.

Where I live, we have 2 super-selectives that cream off the top ability. They get 100% A* to C every year. You then have two faith schools that strongly select based on church attendance but actually try to cream off what is meant to be the next layer, and then there's the 'all the rest school'.

Looking at that model, you'd expect the last school to be the worst, and demographically it should be. Lots of children from poorer backgrounds, the city's sink estate and the rest. The "bad eggs" as some shittily call them.

However, it comes out with a 60-70% pass rate, has the best value added score in the area and is known for it's fantastic pastoral care. It's an excellent school, with low levels of bullying, excellent behaviour and children who achieve above expectations.

Where the girls school is renowned for bullying (brushed under the carpet), the boys has little to no pastoral care whatsoever so kids with home problems and the rest quite often leave (better to get rid than deal with it) and so on, and so on.

This isn't the same everywhere, of course. It just irks me somewhat that the automatic assumption is that Grammar = nice children and nice behaviour where comprehensive = not so nice children and behaviour.

I went to the girls school here. There were as many bad eggs as there were at other schools. Just ones with better academic ability. Problems being brushed under the carpet, doesn't mean they don't exist.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs last year only 4 out of s class of 16 passed. Did you DD go to a private prep as a class size of 16 is very, very small and quite unusual in a state primary school unless the school is seriously under subscribed.

This year which is DD2's year I think only 2 of her friends will pass. How on earth are you able to determine how many will or will not pass even before the exam has been taken?

My school was a 'mixed borstal' I think we should have had some boys/girls sent to borstal ( or whatever there were called in the mid 1980s).
My school was just a building for rounding up the worst kids and keeping them together, so the police knew where we were from 9-3 though most were 'wagging' Monday's and Friday's.

What is interesting though that my brother and sister were twins (5 years older than me) Brother went to my school came out with 2 CSE grade 2 s sister went to the grammar and came out with 2 A grade A levels ( would have been three if she had not walked out of her French exam). both have done fantastically well brother has gone on to a business career in Cheshire. Sister has become a partner in a accountancy practice ( doing all her exams in her career and next year has been accepted for a MSC in Mathematical Finance at Oxford. I am the one who has 'done' bugger all and was the one who had to work for my parents.

The point I am trying to say is that despite what school you attend, you can still be a great success later in life. Another thing that is unusual is that as a family we have attended all types of schools.

Brother , me DD1 Kent Modern schools
Sister, DD2 DS, Kent Grammars
Niece no1 Nephew, Essex Super Selectives
Niece no2 Big Name Girls Boarding Berkshire
Nephew no2 Cheshire Mixed Independent.

I guess it makes me aware of all the types of schools that are available and the different educational experiences each school can offer.

Sorry for being boring, but it just came out...

frogsinapond Mumtryingherbest, sounds like you have the worst of both sytems I think you will find that many areas that have 11 plus have the same situation as I do. The problem is caused by the lack of school places at "outstanding" schools. Every parent wants what is best for their children, this extends to education. If a school is labelled "outstanding" parents rightly or wrongly feel that it will give their DC the best chances in obtaining a good education, leading to better opportunities later in life. The 11 plus does not make the system fairer, easier or more affordable it is simply a different route with the same outlay.

Mumtryingherbest, sounds like you have the worst of both sytems . The only reason I think an exam may be preferable is that it avoids the geographical segregation of rich and poor that the postcode system gives. The wealthy largely manage to secure places at the better schools ether way (by moving or tutoring), but at least with the exam system its only the schools that are socially divisive, not the neighbourhoods too.

Girls Borstal? Hardly. It was a naice school, but there seems to be a view that you can cross off a load of issues such as bullying by going to Grammar School. As mumtrying says above, actually you just get a more intelligent form of bully.

frogsinapond in some ways I prefer an exam to a postcode lottery. I'll swap with you assuming you can sufficiently prepare your DC for an exam that they will need to get between 95%-100% in just to be in the running and then you will also need to be within 225 metres of the school to be in with a definite chance of getting one of 21 places.

at BoF, she really did do well.
DS1 got 10 GCSE's at his comp, we went to the open days at the grammar, he hated it, one teacher was a total snob and turned away from DS after asking what school he had been to.
DS refused to go and we backed him.
He has a very decent job now as a marine electrician on very swanky yachts belonging to very swanky folks.
A nicer young man you could not meet.

BOFster Mostly though, I am just posting to show off. sounds like you have good reason to so congrats to you and your DD.

I also reckon it does them no harm in terms of life skills to rub along with a peer group that isn't necessarily academic. I fully agree as I doubt they will be rubbing shoulders with huge numbers of grammar school leavers when they go into full time employment.

I don't really like selection, but I don't honestly think the comprehensive system is any better. Within 10 miles of where I live the best schools have almost 80% 5 A-C inc maths and english and the high ability get average GCSE grades of A-. The worst schools have 30% 5 A-C inc maths and english and the high ability get average GCSE grades of C-. They are all 'comprehensive' in name, but strong selection by postcode occurs, so that the reality is a polarity of schools about as stark as the difference between grammar and sec modern. It's really no fairer than an exam at 11 - some children end up at great schools and some at rubbish ones, in some ways I prefer an exam to a postcode lottery.