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

What other reasons do you think it could be? NI is not a more affluent region. Its history has been one that disrupted social mobility and the provision of education. Although it does have a great many church schools. Perhaps that's the answer.

It's the bit that says that the number of children in NI, reaching A-C grades at GCSE is 10 percentage points higher than England and Wales. AS and A Level results are also better. Access to university is more equitable with 41.3% of those from the bottom 4 socioeconomic groups going to university as opposed to a national average of 28.4%.

Not on my iPad I can't, it doesn't cope well with the Torygraph for some reason (perhaps it has a conscience) but I googled lea results (or similar) and there was a table for GCSEs in that paper. The difference wasn't huge - something like 63% A-C in Kent and 60% A-c in Hampshire - and it's stats - the truth is basically hidden because A*-C is a huge span, but these stats are what we have. As always, sutton and Kingston were there or thereabouts at the top. I think really, the point is that the stats aren't useful. Talkin's actual experience of the schools near here is good, your actual experience is bad and that's more useful than imperfectly presented overall stats - Kent is viewed as quite deprived because some bits of it are but some bits of it are decidedly not. And the other way round for Hampshire. This probably has an impact on the overall stats that non experts can't evaluate. When I'm at my desk I'll look back through my browser history and find the page but as I said, I did a basic google and found it ok.

The finger was my own fault (as always). But it could have been worse. Last time I tangled with our hob I set my hair on fire.

Dodgy Capitalisation due to iPad and a nasty burn on one of my fingers. Sorry.

Hak, having read these threads for years, and just taken what you and talkin say on trust - that Kent schools are poor and Hampshire comps are amazing - I was a little surprised to read yesterday that this year at least kent got better results than Hampshire. Since Kent is more disadvantaged than Hampshire too, I'm not sure where that leaves your argument. Or indeed my argument since I've long agreed with you that the kent system doesn't work.

Hak, perhaps the Wiki page on Tripartite Education in UK will provide you with more info, particularly the Survival of the System in Northern Ireland bit.

We still have grammar schools here, but since the abolition of the 11+, it has become more difficult for WC children (and more importantly unemployed class children) to access grammar school places as now they have to pay for the entrance exam and tuition, which wasn't the case before.

Is it more expensive to run a 'mixed ability school' with these resources than to run four with just those resources and two with just books and Latin things? Why?

Where on earth did I say I wanted to ignore the 10%? Was it where I said of course they were important? Or somewhere else? Or does thinking about the 90% inevitably entail ignoring the ten?

What a bloody stupid thing to say.

Mini - the spend per pupil at my DC's schools is £4k. :(

I think that's why Technical schools never really got off the ground in the old days - too expensive to equip. I suspect there would have been a lot less dissatisfaction with the system if they had done. People would have probably thought 'well, I am not too fussed about my children learning Latin, but I do want them to get a good spread of O levels.'

It is more expensive to run a mixed ability school though . You need a lot more resources.
Yup : but the number of pupils of differing abilities will not vary
and there is a finite pot of money
so if there were top, middle and lower ability schools, guess where the money would have to go ....

And who aren't supposed to take apprenticeships because level 5 & 6 at KS2 should aspire to more?

Never mind that engineers etc. are highly skilled and well regarded in other countries. Here no, PPE at Oxford seems to have more Kudos.

It is more expensive to run a mixed ability school though . You need a lot more resources.

Which happens in a selective school because "their share" is not being used for other things.
Que?
Schools get a budget share for each pupil
They get extra money for each FSM pupil
They get extra money for each SEN pupil
They get extra money for EFL pupils
etc etc etc
Schools without the pupils with extra needs rightly do not get the extra funds

Upper set kids are more likely to be able to receive set of instructions and carry them out unaided even if they prat about in the course of it
Lower set children need assistance
its a no brainer

BUT
In a mixed ability school there are trained staff to help all kids even those with very narrow areas of weakness

That was me ! state educated predicted ABC only got an interview at the last minute got the offer then got 3 As. I got there despite not because of my education.

I'm sure you're right LaVolcan.

"Which happens in a selective school because "their share" is not being used for other things."

So what do you suggest? A huge increase in tax payer funding for state schools so that able students in state schools have the same amount spent on them as able students in private schools? And forcing all schools - including private schools wishing to keep their charitable status - to take their fair share of more challenging children, so they're spread across the whole education sector rather than being concentrated in comprehensives?

I didn't think so.....

I think there is still much more to inequality in medical education than just which A levels you get. There is still a perception amongst many that this isn't something which people like them aspire to. I think it's changing, but change comes slowly.

From a recent report into social inequality in medical education:

"Also we found that students from selective schools (the majority of which are private schools) were predicted to get higher grades. One of our criterion for selection for interview was predicted grades of two As and a B. If the teacher predicts three Bs then the student is less likely to be invited for interview.
At interview the student from the private school performs well and is offered the standard 2 ‘A’s and a ‘B’. The student from the state school does not even get an interview even though getting 3 ‘B’s at some state schools must be a huge achievement. Come the exams the student from the private school gets an ‘A’ and 2 ‘B’ grades. She or he is however in a pool from which students will be selected, having already been interviewed. Because not all
students offered a place will obtain the required grades, that student gets a place. In the meantime, the student from the state school who also got an ‘A’ and 2 ‘B’s was never interviewed so was never even offered a place. Who has the greater potential? The state school student who surmounted adversity having obtained higher grades in an inner city school or the student who got all the benefits of private education?

The fact remains that about 20 per cent of our students do not get the required offer yet still get given a place at medical school. The majority of these are from selective/private schools."

A third of my P7 class went to grammar school in the early 80s. All were in receipt of FSM and all were working class. None were tutored.