Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

434 replies

Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 13:06

If selection at 11 is such a good idea, why do wholly selective authorities not produce significantly better exam results than demographically similar wholly comprehensive authorities?

OP posts:
LaQueenOnHerHolibobs · 05/09/2014 17:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 17:47

"Hak - you keep saying that 'top set people' will do well wherever they are but that is simply not true. You seem to have a real problem grasping that fact."

But they obviously do. Or, as I have said, wholly selective authorities would have much better results than comprehensive ones. But they don't.

OP posts:
MumTryingHerBest · 05/09/2014 17:44

Hakluyt I understand all that. What I don't understand is why aren't the results significantly better than in a non selective authority? What I don't understand is why they are not significantly better then schools like Parmiters which selects only 25% on academic ability.

BeerTricksPotter · 05/09/2014 17:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria · 05/09/2014 17:40

Sorry - I pressed reply too soon - I meant to add, SOME top set type people will do well wherever they are. Perhaps even MOST of them will. But not all of them.

RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria · 05/09/2014 17:39

Hak - you keep saying that 'top set people' will do well wherever they are but that is simply not true. You seem to have a real problem grasping that fact.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs · 05/09/2014 17:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 17:33

But you're endorsing a system which benefits your children but not the vast majority. While rejecting a system which gives everyone a chance.

You can't say you support selective education if what you mean is you like grammar schools.

And I still haven't had an answer to my original question.

OP posts:
LaQueenOnHerHolibobs · 05/09/2014 17:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeerTricksPotter · 05/09/2014 17:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 17:11

Mintyy- if you look at prh47's post at 13.55 you'll find some interesting stuff. There's a Sutton Trust study that I'll link to shortly which says more- but it's oldish.

OP posts:
Original poster
Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 17:08

"It's not about that, it's about aspiration, discipline and the vision of the SMT. That's what makes a good school a good school."

And in your opinion do you only find that in grammar schools?

OP posts:
Mintyy · 05/09/2014 17:05

I believe you mean utmost LaQ.

Mintyy · 05/09/2014 17:04

Hak, can you give some statistics or data to illustrate your point?

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 05/09/2014 17:02

'S like saying to Katliss Everdeen's mother, "Well, since you don't support the concept of The Hunger Games, you have no right to try and stop your DD being chosen as a tribute"

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 05/09/2014 16:59

So, LaQueen when you said, "I sincerely believe in the grammar system and I would still totally advocate it even if both my DDs failed to get in", what you meant was, "I don't give a shit about the 80% of kids that the grammar system fails, because my DC won't be among them."

And you called Hakluyt a hypocrite?! Wow.

BeerTricksPotter · 05/09/2014 16:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 05/09/2014 16:21

So nobody really much wants to engage with the question of why wholly selective areas don't have much better results than wholly comprehensive? Could it possibly be because the "top set" people are going to do well whether or not they are put in a seperate school so they don't have any chance of interacting with someone with an IQ of 90 in the lunch queue?

OP posts:
smokepole · 05/09/2014 15:57

Rabbit. You are quite correct, about Kent being flawed 'not allowing DD1 a grammar place' despite scoring 380 because of 104 on NVR!.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs · 05/09/2014 15:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

smokepole · 05/09/2014 15:54

One of the biggest differences is the standard of behaviour expected in the classroom. An example I can give is DD2 last year (yr10) got a detention for asking 'two funny' questions imitating lauren from Catherine Tate. 'Miss ,Is Shakespeare a Northerner' 'Miss, Is Stratford Upon Avon Near Scotland' . She got an instant after school detention for those questions, no matter how funny ,they are not acceptable for a English set where everybody is expected at least an A in Language and literature. In DDs1 school this would have caused laughter with the teacher joining in even in year 13 because DD1 tried it .

I suppose if you are trying to help students attain C grades, a bit of fun or comedy does not go a miss. If you are trying to get A* A grades it becomes serious and leaves little time for 'disruptive' behaviour.

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs · 05/09/2014 15:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CallMeACynicBut · 05/09/2014 15:46

IMNSHO, for the same reason that setting doesn't always produce good results. Selection, whether at school level or within a school, doesn't in itself produce good outcomes. What it does is to make it possible to change other things so as to produce good outcomes. You can provide really stretching work for the top set that makes them work hard (not limited by what's on the GCSE syllabus!) and you can provide truly appropriate (challenging but achievable) work for the bottom set, even if what's appropriate for them doesn't put them on track for the magic C. But if the whole school is focused on GCSE grades, maybe neither of these things happen: the bottom set teacher kids herself that if she only teaches the GCSE material well enough they'll get Cs, and the top set teacher kids herself that maximising the chance of an A is the same as providing genuine challenge (and maybe ends up with neither challenge nor A, as the kids disengage). I forget which highly selective school it was whose Good School Guide review said that public exams were seen as almost incidental, and occasionally there was a last minute scramble to make sure the syllabus had actually been covered, but that seems exactly the right approach. Children should learn what's appropriate for them; looking towards exams for years is stifling whatever their level.

FWIW, I do believe that mixed ability teaching can provide great results for all students - but it takes an exceptional teacher to do it well, and even an exceptional teacher needs plenty of preparation time; it's easier to get wrong than teaching fairly homogeneous sets.

Here's an interesting study being planned. Here's hoping it'll be high quality; some of the existing research on setting is shockingly badly done.

news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2014/09/04/major-study-to-look-at-setting-by-ability.aspx

RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria · 05/09/2014 15:45

Because the model adopted in Kent is flawed.

DaughterDilemma · 05/09/2014 15:24

Absolutely LaQueen about the German system, it's honest and works for everyone equally. Children are sometimes mis-cast as it were but those in the 'fachschule' leave with more confidence and don't feel left at the bottom of the heap. They also earn well and go into decent apprenticeships. All careers are taken seriously, not just the Doctor/Lawyer obsession we have here.

The UK just constantly tweaks the system but will never face the elephant in the room - private schools. Yes they have them in Germany but they are boarders for those families who travel a lot.

My knowledge on this is a little outdated, I would like to know if it's changed. I hope not.