Seriously though, why ARE some state secondary schools allowed to select a proportion of their intake? And I'm not talking about religion here.

Ta1kinPeace oh, I see, I was confusing the two things. My DC were educated abroad until they were teens. I was happy that they didn't have to do SATS etc. I think they were in top sets in their 'leafy' comp but I'm not sure. I found the whole system confusing and I'm British. Goodness knows how parents who don't speak English well manage.
I've lived in countries where kids automatically go to their local schools. If the schools are in poorer neighbourhoods they would attract extra funding and support to balance things out a bit.

Those without supportive parents are pushed out of the top sets
how?

and please define a "coasting" school ...
in R U M terms that are comparable to any professional appraisal

No every child doesn't get the chance to excel.

Those without supportive parents are pushed out of the top sets. Those suffering from disruption are held back. Those in schools that require improvement or which are coasting(often in the less wealthier areas) have a different comp education.

Pressabutton
Streaming is awful : your mark in maths determines your set in English and humanities and PE - top in all or bottom in all

Setting is fab :
Good at maths, top set in maths :
middling at English , 3rd set in English
crap at PE, bottom set at PE
so every child gets the chance to excel

Lily I hope the 'hypocrisy' comment wasn't aimed at me . If so, it was very rude!

I know my DC are unfairly 'advantaged' over other kids, we could chose whether they went to private school, the grammar school in the next town or the local 'naice' comp. All very good options. It doesn't mean I don't dissaprove of selective state schools.

I get your point that streaming can still be unfair but, if it's implemented carefully, it's still a whole lot fairer than state selective schools.

I don't like streaming, as it only works for kids who are equal across the board.
Setting though is another matter. Although round here top sets don't have fewer numbers. And aren't exclusively true high ability, making up the numbers usually prevents it. I don't mind mixed ability teaching if it's a mixed ability group, but with individual differentiation so all children work at an individual level appropriate for them. If it's the mixed ability that passes in some local schools as hold the high ability kids back and work at a level suited to the average and less able, then setting is the only way to even stand a chance of getting appropriate level work. And not always then.
Tbh I'm happy with my dd in mixed ability, if she isn't expected to sacrifice her potential to the greater good. When a school can't manage that, then practically speaking the only other resort is safety in numbers from an able cohort to be taught in. And to an extent, some subjects and content does need a less mixed group just to teach it. Eg no point forcing a child massively struggling to do separate science or two languages, or a useless one like me to do music, but unfair to stop others doing them because they all can't. If that disadvantages less able kids, then until there is another choice available locally for my dd, other than disadvantaging her, then like any parent I'm going to put mine first. I don't notice kids better off in other areas, eg parental income, time, holidays, family support etc being expected to give it up and share with worse off class mates, so I'm not sure why when it comes to academic ability, all, regardless of background, should be expected to put others education first.

Although in theory no part of the education system should be putting the onus on disadvantaging one child for another, there are ways round it for the most part as some schools do manage it well.

No it isn't if they have come from weaker primaries, they are disadvantaged before they start. Many use Sats and it is hard to move sets once in a lower one. Going by the anti grammar brigade bright kids working alongside other bright kids is advantageous so an unfair advantage for those in lower sets.

Also at one of the comps we were looking at the very able are creamed off into smaller groups. Not exactly fair on those other kids stuck in classes of nearly 30 and disruption.

It's widely known that are our feeder comp is fine if your kid gets into the top sets as they're pushed more and have less disruption. Not that easy to work your way out of a set with disruption and less pushing in my experience.

The kids with less interested parents will also find it extremely difficult to move sets as having interested educated parents is the biggest advantage of all.

So no it is far from fair going by some of the arguments on here.

Always makes me chuckle the posters who berate the "advantages" they see other kids get which their own don't whilst happily taking up other advantages which benefit their own and disadvantage others- on a far bigger scale.

I believe the word is hypocrisy.

Streaming within a school is fair as it's available to all the children.

State education will never be a level playing field.

Far,far more parents enjoy financial selection than any other kind. Those that enjoy places in the perceived better schools because others can't afford the bus fares to bus out or expensive blazers. Or even worse those that can afford to rent or buy in catchments for the better schools. The numbers are huge.

The selection in secondary schools with the more able being creamed off into top sets,often taught by different teachers,smaller classes and little SEN goes on all the time but funnily enough many parents are happy with that.

If you want true fairness a lottery system with completely mixed classes is the only way to go. But even that wouldn't rectify the fact that many children have advantages from birth. Those that are read to have higher vocabularies regardless of wealth,those that have more books or interested parents will have more advantages again and thus better exam results and life chances.Perhaps we should go one better and have a point system and those with parents who put education as a priority should have points deducted from GCSEs. Then education would be truly fair.

Presabutton
My DCs attended non selective schools to 16, and the college just asks for 5 x A-C

DD's oldest and best friend is - by his own admission - thick as a brick
but he is a lovely person and our lives are better for knowing him and his family
in his own way he will go far
and the fact that DD understands that "go far" has many meanings
makes her a better person IMHO

I went to very selective schools / unis till I was 21 and it left me utterly unprepared to cope with the real world.

TiggyTape knows what she is talking about.

I agree with Mintty. I don't think state school should be selective at all.

It's ridiculous, unfair and complicated.

All schools should cater to all students be they high or low ability.

When I'm in charge I will ban all selective schools.

BTW My DC all got places at the closest grammar so I'm not saying I dislike selective schools because I'm bitter )

Don'tdrink
DDs college (which has 1800 students per year group) used to do GenStud as a useful way of enforcing breadth in otherwise narrow A level choices
and
when A levels were modular it was feasible.
They have dropped the requirement and are focusing on narrow choices again to get past the Oxbridge / RG facilitating list again

which may not be for the good of the 70% of students who do not go to University ...

Minty, is this in response to my thread about commuting to a secondary? Where it emerged that DD was applying for a music place at a central London comp?

Grammars apart, I really don't see what is wrong with saving a miniscule (and we're talking a tiny amount here, for example 7 out of 120 places, or 14 out of 150, to name two well regarded schools) amount of places for those with musical aptitude and/or skill. It encourages the idea of music of being part of a decent general education, and by offering good musicians/pupils with potential to become good musicians places, keeps music alive in state schools, where it is otherwise dwindling or completely absent.

Yes, the state system should be a level playing field. But sadly it isn't.

Partly, I assume, is that it adds to points in the league tables. Perhaps it also helps with university interviews.

Why do so many schools insist on General Studies or Critical Thinking at A level when universities don't give a shit about them?

'16 of the top 20 schools in the country now being state schools.'

Any league tables that display 'points per pupil' (rather than % of A/A*s) is somewhat misleading. General studies A level is compulsory at Colchester Royal Grammar School for example but universities don't count it, and psst, have you noticed the 30 overseas students paying fees in its boarding house (state school?!!) which bump up its Oxbridge stats?

I agree with you Mintyy

It's bad enough that you can select for Grammar schools without having selection in comprehensives as well. I am not against private schools selecting, but state education should be a completely and utterly level playing field.

prh
You and I will never agree on the Academy issue, so lets not bring that fight into this thread.

What proof do you have that the Academy scheme made the difference, rather than better pedagogy, monitoring, reporting and pupil nutrition?

walk away from the Free School / Academy debacle

You mean the debacle that has led to the top 500 state schools outperforming the top 500 independent schools, with 16 of the top 20 schools in the country now being state schools? It is true that the average independent school still outperforms the average state school but the gap is closing.

All London schools are over subscribed because the population has risen by 2 million in 15 years
and the idiot Broon sold off the old school sites for housing in the 90's because he did not understand cyclical demographics.
LEAs are not allowed to open new schools so it will only get worse.

One of Corbyn's few really sensible policies is to walk away from the Free School / Academy debacle and make LEAS responsible for providing decent school places for all children again.

Presumably it's that oversubscribed mainly because there is no distance criteria (tie breaker is lottery). So worth putting down, because unless you've qualified for a scholarship or have a sibling in the school, you just cannot be sure of getting a place whether you live on top of the school or the other side of London.

I think Kingsdale's claim is to be the most oversubscribed Southwark school. 8th in the country for oversubscribed non selective state schools.

Yes, the boasting is very very very annoying. I was tempted to send an anonymous letter to the head telling him it was nauseating and he needed to tone it down. Was particularly irritated by the wheeling out of the pupil with 15A* GCSEs as evidence of the school's efficacy.

Still - it didn't stop me putting the school down as first choice...

In my mind the biggest problem is selection by catchment.
I think the only way to stop the sharp elbowed scrapping for a decent school place is to raise the overall standard/ aspirations. Anything practically difficult to cater to because it's a tiny minority of the intake (whether that's academic gift, Sen, musical or sporting talent etc) could be met by a comprehensive if proper schemes were in place in each lea to utilise cross school or colleges etc to get a decent cohort for whatever minority can't practically be managed in any area. So eg all talented musicians in the area sharing a lesson and so on.
Yes you'd still get some creamed off to independents/ specialist schools, or especially with Sen those whose needs still can't be met, and there'll always be some state schooling parents who will try and avoid darling tarquinella mixing with the council estate kids. But the vast majority only care about getting their childs needs met. Therefore remove the need and the issue will massively reduce.

Re Sen- I think schools can self select to an extent. Get a reputation locally for having awful Sen provision and informed parents will do their best to go elsewhere.

Also I'm not in a selective area, except for religion or money. To realistically take up a grammar place you'd need to move house. The sharp elbowed fight for a suitable school locally comes down to ability to move house for catchment or grammar, or ability to go private.

Tiiggy, at the grammar I went to back in the Dark Ages, about 50% came from prep schools At least the Pupil Premium thing is going some of the way to address the disparity.
My DH used to teach at a grammar where the intake was well over 70% ethnic minority, but that was down to where the school was rather than sny proactive measures IYSWIM.