Anyone else disappointed with their state choices?

I don't agree that the most able students would get the same or better opportunities if selective education was abolished. I think some able students (those who live in the catchments of the best performing schools) would get the same or better. I think that those who live in the catchments of poorer schools would have worse choice, worse opportunities and a poorer education. At least with the current system the very able but poor child who lives within a catchment of only poorer schools can have the opportunity of gaining a place at an out of catchment grammar or a bursary to an academically selective private school. Abolishing all forms of selection is not going to mean a sudden influx of able children with interested parents into the comp which only achieves 26% A-C because many of those parents will do whatever they can to avoid having to send their children to such a school.

maybe how is money going to pour into state schools because you close private ones?

Do you think parents will just gift the money they would have spent on fees? Do all those parents who 'could afford private school but chose state' do that now? Do they fuck .

If I were forced to send my DC to a state school, I might come all over a bit generous with the PTA cake sale, but hand over thousands of quid each year? Nah.

Taxguru-i really don't think anecdotes from 40 years ago are relevant!

And if I had to choose between giving scarce resources to a grammar school or a secondary modern, then it seems to me to be a no brainier that the secondary modern gets more..........

State selectives are actually getting less money these days because funding is being moved towards those with higher proportions of SENs and those on free school meals. Our DS's school have had to make several teachers redundant and have had to cut the range of courses at GCSE and A level to balance the books.

As for all kids doing better in mixed ability comps, I have real life experience of the opposite. In my town, there was a secondary school and a grammar. It was the time when grammars were being closed down, and the grammar morphed into a comp two years before I moved there, the secondary winding down by no new intakes and their pupils moving through the years over 4 years until they'd all left. The grammar was building new blocks each year to cope with twice as many new intake classes each year. The whole town was conned into believing that everyone would get the grammar-quality education and no-one in my primary class took the 11+ to try to get into the grammar in the next town which survived. I saw the results of the social experiment from the inside, year by year as the ex-grammar pupils moved up and left. The ex-grammar teachers were having nervous breakdowns, the school went from being well kept and tidy to having broken windows, graffiti everywhere, broken desks and tables, bullying increased exponentially. Within a few years, word got round and parents started sitting their primary age kids for the 11+ again to get them into the grammar in the next town or started going to church to get them into the church schools instead. Inevitable result was even greater concentration on the unruly kids which made matters even worse. Now, 40 years on, it's struggling in special measures, with falling numbers and "parents who care" living within a mile or two of the school bus-ing their kids several miles in a fleet of at least 10 school buses across the county border to a better comp in the next county. And yet, I still remember all the lies of how merging the grammar would give everyone a grammar education - one of the biggest lies you could imagine!

Not read whole thread but the comments I have read so far from Maybebaby I agree with entirely.
My children go to a primary in a so called disadvantaged area [which clearly I live in as in catchment]. They will go to their local secondary which ofsted said recently has few very able children but those that are there do well.
My child [year 6] is an able child, if we are to use such language, and that is where he will be going. He has friends of all backgrounds and abilities and befriends people for who they are not whether they are deemed bright or not.
Long may that continue.....[Minecraft is very bonding!!].

Sorry x posted with you Lurked.

My point was not that they don't do better in selective education. It was that if these types of school were abolished all children would get the same, and better, opportunities.

I agree with seek, in any case. I value state education. I think it is massively underrated and a lot of it is much better than it's made out to be.

I feel very strongly about it. I don't think private schools and grammar schools should exist. I think they're a massive root cause of social inequality.

I don't disagree maybe. And there are good none selective state schools. Unfortunately they aren't the majority.
The figures show that the minority of selectively educated people have the majority of powerful positions. I'd bet on the fact if you looked at the figures for high achievers at primary level, and the figures for kids that are still high achievers at say 25, there wouldn't be a proportionate representation of children who went through the none selective state route.
Which kid is most likely to be prime minister? Dds extremely able mate with involved and educationally minded parents who's gone to the shithole catchment comp, a kid from an average comp that practically aims resources at middle and low achievers, or dds new y7 fee paying friend at a top independent? And yet however caring and socially minded the latter may prove to be, it's the former child who's policies would be best for most of us, and certainly the most vulnerable.
And yes in theory if everyone sent their able kids to a local comprehensive it would cause improvement. But even in none selective areas it is currently just causing selection by parental income due to house price, so getting rid of private education and state grammar won't solve it. And I don't think I'm alone in saying I'm not willing to sacrifice my childs education for the sake of improvement for future generations.
When the state starts providing for able kids properly, fairly and across the board, more people will start actively choosing them for able kids.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405518/The_most_able_students.pdf

A govt report on the most able students in non selective education.

I don't think anyone has ever sent a child to state school thinking 'I am sacrificing my child for other children', have they? So many must just feel some combination of:

1. satisfaction with how their child is doing, despite less able children being nearby.
2. a sense that there are other things they value about the kind of education their child is receiving.
3. a sense that this is model of education they prefer, and therefore of which they wish to be a part.

I know if I don't do my recycling, the planet won't die. But I think recycling is the right thing to do, and so I want to do it anyway. Likewise, I don't think that if I take my bright child out of state comprehensive, the comprehensive will be the worse off. But I would still think it was the wrong thing to do.

I also find it really insulting that there seems to be some sort of general opinion that teaching is not good at state schools. I had some completely fantastic teachers at my school. Moreover they really care about making a difference for all children, not just well-off or intelligent ones.

However, why should the parent of the most able child sacrifice his child reaching his full potential to ensure that other people's children do better?

But I don't think this is always the case. As I said upthread, I went a well below-average state school and did extremely well. I'm really not convinced I would have done any better somewhere that was academically selective.

You also forget that if more parents who were interested in their children's education sent them to state schools, more would be demanded of state schools. If the money that gets poured into private schools was poured into states, there would be equal educational opportunities for all children regardless of family background or wealth.

I'm guiltily smirking at the image of a bright child being held by the ankles by his socially-minded mother and repeatedly bashed against an 'education ceiling' .

I don't think it's the presence of the 'most able' that creates a better environment - I think it's the absence of the able in some schools (or, perhaps more specifically, in the secondary moderns which would be created if those who want more grammars had their way) that creates a worse one: lower morale, necessarily lower expectations, sense that anyone who could be elsewhere, is.

It would not raise attainment, it would just make the schools results look better. Would not improve the teaching, which is the critical factor.

Frankly if more people sent their 'able' DC to state schools, it would raise the bar a bit and raise attainment. IMO.

research has shown that all but the most able do better in mixed ability environments due to the effect of having the most able in the mix. However, why should the parent of the most able child sacrifice his child reaching his full potential to ensure that other people's children do better?
My responsibility as parent of my child is to ensure that my child reaches his potential, my responsibility to other people's children is sadly not the same.
I have children at both ends of the ability spectrum and I ensure that both of my children get the education that is of best use to them as an individual and helps them individually to reach their potential. I certainly wouldn't hold back my very able child for the benefit of his less able sibling so I certainly would not do that for the benefit of other people's children.
Whilst the education ceiling needs to be broken (the one which means the most able have the chance of a grammar education /independent school education) I am not about to use my own children as sledgehammers to break that ceiling.

nicole state selective schools are not more well resourced than mixed ability schools. Often they get less money and have larger classes. Often the geographical area of catchment means ECs are not wildly doable either.

Yet they still offer an able student a better environment IMVHO.

"Excuse me, there are plenty of people at non selective state schools who have done well...."

Not according to mumsnet there aren't!

achievement, not attainment!

Frankly if more people sent their 'able' DC to state schools, it would raise the bar a bit and raise attainment. IMO.

Excuse me, there are plenty of people at non selective state schools who have done well....

And nicole in many non selectives state schools there's fuck all provision for the most able. And until there is, a lot of parents will choose selectives. Which means the majority of powerful positions will remain in the hands of the privileged minority educated at them. If you want less privileged backgrounds represented at the top, and an actual change from upper classes being the ruling class, it's the most able state school kids who need to be educated in a way that allows it to happen.
Don't forget too, independents are businesses, as well as charities. You start giving all the bursary places to the lowest achieving fsm children, the drop in achievement will drop results, and therefore income, and soon enough the bursary funding will reduce too and then nobody benefits. I'm not under the illusion dd got her independent place purely because she started primary with fsm and I'm a lone parent with one pretty average income. She's there to bump the average achievement too, as are the majority of kids with independent places funded by private schools. Individually, yes, a low achiever would stand to gain more. But society as a whole gains more if the most able are allowed to get to the top.
State selectives slightly different as funding isn't the same issue. But having a bottom set in a grammar wouldn't create much chance for influence. And throwing a few lower ability kids in sets beyond them doesn't do anybody any favours. You could of course slow down the more able kids, but as that's precisely the reason why most people have moved away from state comprehensives, it wouldn't change things long term. It would just mean more parents turning to private, and more catchment by house price comprehensives.
Shit and nowhere near acceptable as it is, current academic selection at least allows a tiny minority of less privileged able kids to succeed, which is vastly better than none.

Lurked the thread started off as a discussion about limited options in the OP's area.

Before it all went a little bit offline, the discussion was about choices - moving house for example, having a longer commute, paying for school fees or, in the case of church schools, if you don't already go to church, then jumping through hoops to stand a better chance of securing a place.

The OP didn't say she couldn't get to church, or that it was too onerous, she said she didn't want to.

The point I was making was that it is a choice. If people would rather commit to football than go to church or commute or pay school fees then thats entirely up to them. Why should someone have to move to a grammar school area because they want to give their child the chance of a grammar school education? Why should a parent have to pay privately for smaller class sizes? Why should one school be allowed to have a sibling priority when the next school along doesn't? Why are some schools allowed to give priority to children of the staff who work there? Most schools prioritise families for all sorts of reasons.

Seriously, this whole thread is completely over-thought. If you've got a parent who is concerned enough about their child's educational prospects to post online on a forum for advice, chances are that child is going to do well wherever.

It also depends on what you mean by 'engaging' in children's education. My mum was engaged in mine up insofar as she wanted and expected me to do well and praised me when I did. However, was she engaged to the point that she was agonising about my school, checking all my homework, looking up university open days for me, etc etc? No. She expected me to get on with that on my own. Which I did.

"I'm surprised to hear you of all posters say that a vital part of what makes a great school is necessarily missing in comprehensives".

There is no political pressure to change this situation because the 'great and the good' in the UK largely educate their children outside the state sector; the inequality of provision is a good thing for them because it gives their children an advantage in the competition for university places and jobs.

"I feel that selective schools offer the best environment for the most able to succeed, but that's not what we're talking about here."

Actually small classes, the chance to mix with children who are bright and motivated, access to well resourced and well organised extra-curricula activities, which is what children get in private schools, would probably vastly benefit disadvantaged lower ability children. I suspect that if you're looking for 'value added' they would get vastly more from this type of provision than high ability children.

But these things are a closed book to this type of child. There is no place for disadvantaged, poorly supported and low achieving children in the whole of the private sector. None.