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

So mini we need to enable morally literate dcs to do the job....and almost certainly do it better. That might mean investing a bit more in their education. Which happens in a selective school because "their share" is not being used for other things.

Why do threads on selective schools always end up banging on about the top 10%
Simple
They are the only group who get the option of their own school and their parents are often the pushiest.

If the top 10% were told to lump it, like the middle 70% are, then the whole rationale for selective schools would go out the window.

However
Schools that are missing their top sets (either by official selection as in Kent or by choice selection as with my local school) will always find it harder to get the teachers who can get satisfaction out of working with high fliers mixed in with nudging the middle to do their very best.
They are therefore trapped in a position of only being able to use VA to show how good their teaching really is
but Twonks like the unlamented Gove regarded VA as "accepting failure"

I think this whole thread is bizarre.

It stands to reason that if you take a population of children, cluster all the ones who are already falling behind when they start school at three, the most challenging, the most badly nourished, the unfit, the poor and disruptive children into one set of schools, and all of the best supported, affluent, healthy and able children into a different set of schools, you are going to create two very different sorts of learning environments, and the outcomes in terms of learning will reflect that across the board.

I also suspect that able and affluent children in state schools have a fraction of the money spent on their education compared to similar children in private schools, because the spend per pupil in state schools is heavily weighted in favour of children with special needs and those from deprived backgrounds. Why should education be the only sector where the belief that 'you get what you pay for' is disregarded? (by way of example - the spend per pupil at my dd's community comprehensive was £6073 per pupil. The nearest private school charges £14592 per year......)

"Just look at the cabinet 80% privately educated -why ?"

That shower of morally illiterate cunts is the best argument for banning private schools I've ever heard.

LaVolcan - the comp I'm referring to (where Talkin's dc go) is in a fully comprehensive LEA - there are no grammar schools or secondary moderns. Although 20-30 of the high achievers get 12/13 As or As at GCSE only 60% of the middle achievers get 5 A to C (ie 40% don't even get 5 C grades inc English and maths). These poor results are repeated throughout many comprehensive schools in fully comprehensive areas.

why shouldn't dc with A/A* at GCSE go into those jobs Hak? I agree we should compare results of all dc not just the most able, but lets not pigeon-hole anyone into particular roles

Tbh what concerns me is that those are the only jobs a state education will prepare you for. As the president of the TUC said this week we are in danger of reverting to an upstairs downstairs culture with the toffs at the top.

I think the German model of a technical college is excellent is that what you are driving at ? Fwiw our local high school has a fantastic food tech lab, Dct and mechanic facilities.

I don't follow Hak, what are you saying ? That we are in danger of producing a generation where no one is qualified for these jobs? That selective education is bad for them ?

This is just my opinion but I think people who have been state educated have a bit more social conscience than those who went to private or public school. ( no evidence just my experience) they often want to give something back.

StillWishihadabs This 10% who nit wants to ignore are potentially the people who are going to pay down the national debt and keep us in our old age. There again they could have off shore accounts/investments and tax avoidance advisors.

I think that was 90% with SAT 5a, which is a bit different.

This 10% who nit wants to ignore are potentially the people who are going to pay down the national debt and keep us in our old age. It is in all our interests they are as well educated as they can be....in crass dollar terms they offer a much better return on the investment than the 90% [ shock]

Oh did they? I missed it.

I thought someone had said up thread that the 90 % performed similarly ...

'Well it's certainly true lavolcan that the LEAs who are most successful in terms of getting students into Oxbridge are selective ones.'

We don't know why this is though. For example, it could be that parents of very bright dc are more likely to move into a grammar area. (There was definitely a Mnetter with a very bright ds some years ago who moved to lincolnshire so he could have a grammar education for example). It would only be parents of notably bright dc who would comfortably pass 11+ (ie oxbridge standard) who would try this tactic I would think, but if enough did it it would affect the figures.

But this is a discussion about academic selection !!

Word 'Frogs the figures in Eng lang were screwed in 2012 but the impact affected selective schools too.'

Yes indeeed. Possibly moreso than non selectives if they were more likely to sit the exams terminally. I don't think we have the figures for selective schools yet though?

I was really trying to say that for that particular metric (English GCSE results), that year was a bad one to look at the figures for (for any group) as it is more likely to be atypical.

Are you an admissions tutor for a Russell group LaVolcan

No, not me.

Well it's certainly true lavolcan that the LEAs who are most successful in terms of getting students into Oxbridge are selective ones.

Is this so? There is not necessarily a direct correlation. Most grammar schools are in the south of England, as are Oxbridge. Plenty of children from the North are perfectly happy with the likes of Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and don't find the idea of a smallish town in the south-east all that attractive.

I'm not saying the top 10% don't matter: of course they do! But in most discussions where there's a perceived 10 and a perceived 90%, I'd expect more discussion of the 90 than this.

Getting a good apprenticeship is brilliant obviously. But this is not what we should as a society be aspiring to for the dcs getting level 5 and 6 at kS2

Actually what you notice is that privately educated dcs are over represented in high achieves.

Who says middle achievers and low achievers fare well in the comprehensive system?

To some extent this depends on the school, but I have noted from friends and family that children of parents who left with few qualifications from the Sec Mods are now getting A levels at their Comprehensives and going on to professional jobs/good quality apprenticeships. Because that idea - you have failed, you are thick, has been removed.

Well it's certainly true lavolcan that the LEAs who are most successful in terms of getting students into Oxbridge are selective ones.