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

Could I add that if the figures are by children educated in the LEA two of those said Boroughs are homes to 'superselective schools', so selecting children from a very wide catchment area.

The 'Entire counties' arguement doesn't really wash. Accepting that the Isle of Scilly are a special case - tell me which of these areas are poor:

1 Isles Of Scilly 81.00%
2 Kensington and Chelsea 80.20%
3 Sutton 77.00%
4 Bromley 73.90%
5 Kingston upon Thames 71.60%

146 Stoke-on-Trent 49.90%
147 Isle of Wight 48.70%
148 Portsmouth 47.60%
149 Blackpool 46.10%
150 Knowsley 43.70%

I don't doubt that the London Boroughs have some pockets of deprivation and that some parts of Stoke on Trent and Blackpool will have some wealthier areas, but the overall picture is very plain.

Rabbit
The source of data matters because many Newspaper reports on school exams : like the "results tables" that were spouted by the press this summer were based on self reported non moderated incomplete data

There are lies, damned lies and statistics

I'd like to know how much filtering the Torygraph does before publishing ....

(a) I said many and I used Medway as a specific example just a few posts ago
(b) how would I know where the torygraph gets its data?

LEAs are entire counties
they may have the NAME of a county but they are NOT the entire county.
Hampshire LEA does not include Southampton or Portsmouth
Dorset does not include Bournemouth or Poole
Kent does not include Medway

Where did the Torygraph extract that data, as the only source without political spin is here
www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/index.html
and it does not have a "by LEA" button

I'm still not convinced that you can securely group children according to perceived ability at 11 or that intellect is largely fixed in children.

Nobody here has said anything to convince me of it.

LaVolcan - it is quite crude though because many LEAs are entire counties. And most counties have good bits and bad bits. The county I live in is regarded by some as wealthy (because there are some very posh/wealthy bits) and by others (including as it happens the EU) as grindingly poor - because there are bits like that too.

I am not "going on" about Haks choice. I asked a question regarding the number of grammar school places available. Hak responded by saying that in Kent, parents who made the same choice as she did regard 77% of children as collateral damage. As she doesn't possess mind reading abilities, I asked her if that's what she thought?

The system of selection clearly works in NI as I am sure it does in other LEAs. So the question should be what is different in the areas where selection produces better results and increased social mobility and those where it doesn't?

However given Hak's discounting of the figures where it does work and her attribution of "I'm alright Jsck" mentality to those who are in favour of a system that she believes benefits her DC I'm no longer sure what this thread is about.

Looking at the stats Rabbit linked to, what struck me was not which were Grammar/Sec Mod or Comprehensive areas, but that it was a clear reflection of poverty. Crudely: wealthy areas = good results, poor areas = poor results, although there are some LEAs that confound that.

mum you're right it does skew the figures when a selective school has no catchment.

Though not entirely of course and not at all in some boroughs where there are catchment criteria ,

It's based on the children being educated in the LEA, not on residency. However, to take Kent as an example (because it's always Kent!) - most of the border of Kent is actually water. Not a huge amount of scope for kids who might be expected to perform less well to go elsewhere - and Medway and Bromley - the places they might go - also did better than many wholly comp areas.

TheWordFactory You asked why LEAs with selection don't do better by the measure of 5 GCSEs. The answer seems to be that some do do better than many non selective LEAs. One question I would ask is, do LEAs take the results from the school or do they take the results from the children actually living in the LEAs area remit?

To highlight what I mean, some super selectives have no catchment and in some cases have children attending from up to 25 miles away (my local selective schools have quite a number of children coming from Harrow). Does this child's results get included in the results of LEA they live in or the LEA where the school resides?

Are some of the local children being pushed out to areas within the remit of another LEA. If this was to happen, could it be that the results of surrounding LEAs would be lower as they are taking on the lower academic ability range of the selective area?

To be clear, this is not me stating a point, it is me asking what people think.

But you have absolutely no evidence to say that the entirety of Kent and Bucks and NI are damaged. In fact it's a fairly preposterous assertion.

You asked why LEAs with selection don't do better by the measure of 5 GCSEs. The answer seems to be that some do do better than many non selective LEAs.

None seem to do significantly worse.

It may be that selective LEAs also produce better results for high achievers.

So now you're changing the perceived problem with it.

I don't think it is fair to keep on and on bringing up Hak's kids. She played by the rules of the place in which she lives and when it didn't work out she didn't go private as so many do, she stood by her principles which is to be honest pretty admirable.

Until I realised that Kent schools aren't as bad as I'd been pled to believe I would have said that the problem was there were too many grammar school places, not too few. Now I just don't know. Perhaps there isn't even a problem at a macro scale.

Perhaps the problem then is not enough grammar school places in Kent. Maybe some more are necessary so that 40%+ children attend.

What were your thoughts on the 23% that your DC was part of. When striving to get your DS his grammar school place, what were you thinking about the 77%? Did you consider 77% of your DS's year group "collateral damage"?

Hak - Here's the link

Kent are 48th in the GCSE tables, Hampshire are 86th. Bucks (wholly selective?) are 8th, Sutton Kingston Barnet Slough and Trafford (partially selective/super selective) are all in the top 10.

Proves nothing but does belie the received MN wisdom that Kent always does less well than Hampshire at any rate. (I do realise that there are places in Kent that are not within the Kent LEA - Bromley, Medway for a start. Bromley was 4th, Medway was 74th - both still 'above' Hampshire).

Where selection is not benefiting the children in that authority compared to wholly comprehensive LEAs.

What % of children in LEAs where selection isn't working attend grammar schools?