To think that the best non selective comps are really selective?

[Cortina]

Thinking about GCSE results at the following non selective state schools:

Thomas Telford that got 46% A/A, Dame Alice Owen, 67% A/A, Parminters, 53% A/A, Watford Grammar for Girls 67% A/A, St Aidan's Harrogate, 59% A/A, Lady Margaret, 60% A/A, Hasmonean High, 55% A/A, King David High 55% A/A, JFS, Kenton, 50% A/A, Thomas Telford 98% A-C including English and maths, 46% A/A, Cardinal Vaughan, 57% A/A, St John the Baptist, Kingfield, 51% A/A, Camden for girls 44% A/A*.

These are impressive results for non selective comps! If really the case then perhaps these are the schools we should consider moving house for?

Can I just ask - what is the problem?

People appear to be objecting to selection by ability (whether overt or by stealth) which, to my naive/ignorant mind, seems a bit like objecting to awarding Olympic medals for those that come first/top in competition etc.

I want my daughter to go through selection by ability as that is the best way of ensuring that she is stretched academically and achieves her potential.

Look at the comprehensive schools in Cheltenham - they are comps but they select by catchment area.

there are 3 very good ones, funnily enough they are situated in the affluent areas.

There are 2 crap comps - they have as part of their catchment the 2 huge and deprived council estates in Cheltenham.

Churchdown (the village next door) has 2 comps - a very good one (which has the leafty avenues as part of the catchment) or the less well performing one (which has the army base and the council estate).

In Gloucester you have the 11+ - so by dint of how you perform on a particular day when you are 10 or 11, you are selected to go to one of the 4 grammars (all of them 98% or better at GCSE A-C) or one of the 4 comps (results between 20 and 45%) or the well perforning catholic comp.

Was probably better where I come from in Devon - a true comprehensive in a rural area. 1200 kids from the largest geographical catchment in the country, and truly dire private schools, so novody had any choice but to send their kid to the local school.

Yes I have more "choice" living in Gloucestershire, but it's not really choice as i would describe it.

"People appear to be objecting to selection by ability (whether overt or by stealth) which, to my naive/ignorant mind, seems a bit like objecting to awarding Olympic medals for those that come first/top in competition etc"

Right. So all those kids who go to private schools and have tutors are also NATURALLY much more able than kids from rough comprehensives, and kids who have no access to private tuition? They must be surely, as they make up the bulk of undergraduates at elite universities!

One half of children in London have private tutoring. Are you suggesting that these children are competing on a level playing field with children who have had no additional academic support?

My two boys are currently sitting in a classroom with 29 other kids in an inner london primary. Many of the children they share their teacher with have English as a second language and there are many children there with complex social problems which interfere with their ability to learn well at school. Do you think my boys will have the same chance of getting a place in a selective secondary school as they would have done had they spent their years of primary education sitting alongside other middle-class kids in a class of 13?

Should add, the very popular comp with fantastic results that my dd wanted to go to takes pupils from a much richer catchment area than the one we live in. However, they're allowed to select 10% of their intake on the basis of ability alone. The two boys from dd's class who got a place there had both had 2 years of private tutoring before sitting the entrance exam. They were also both the oldest children in year six.

The whole school admission policies are flawed full stop, without factoring in tutoring, family finance, opportunities etc.

Rules, policies, catchments, exams vary from district to district, county to county and just aren't standard. Coupled to that, some areas have no single sex schools, faith schools, etc, which some parents might have preferred and can't afford to move nearer to.

In short, there are no answers. I agree with the point that it seems like objecting to medals to those that win fair and square. Some children are naturals and will achieve selective places without outside tuition, it's a fact.

And yes, I can see that some children might be disadvantaged 'on paper.' I also feel that this isnt 100% the school or teacher's problem to resolve, but the parents responsibility and if you cant afford tutoring yet want your child to learn more, start early enough and help your child more yourself, a little every night.

See so many parents with youngsters in Y5 and Y6 suddenly start to panic about secondary intakes, realise their child may not get a place at better school, turn sour grapes on those that do, and wonder why. You have to start teaching your child yourself of an evening if you cant afford it. Plenty of resources online, libraries, W H Smith etc.

"and if you cant afford tutoring yet want your child to learn more, start early enough and help your child more yourself, a little every night. "

Children whose parents are highly literate and numerate are much, much more likely to receive ADEQUATE and appropriate support at school.

The parents of the most deprived children in the country may well have left school with no qualifications themselves and be functionally illiterate.

What do you say to the ten year old child raised in a household where nobody is interested in reading? Tough luck?

tittybangbang - the single most important factor in determining educational outcomes (in my view) is the extent to which children are encouraged to read of their own volition and the support they receive from their parents.

Holding back certain 'advantaged' (stupid word) children, so that others feel better about themselves, does both groups a disservice.

I think the answer is to care, enormously, consistently, for a very long time, and whether or not you have children in the system, for state education. Generally. Not just to worry about it for the (short) period your children are in it. And to act, and care, concertedly.

And to fund accordingly.

Which we still don't have. I know Labour put a lot of money in, but we still need more.

It may not seem like the best time to be calling for that, but it never is. And in fact, perhaps now, more than ever, we need to really care about state education. Especially since the gap between private and state, and from state school to state school, is surely only set to widen.

BarmyArmy - It's not selection by ability though is it? It's selection by performance.

The point, to those who are saying So What about selection processes, is that these so-called comprehensive schools are nothing of the sort! The league tables are pointless unless you are comparing like for like.

On a slightly different subject, Dd2's (non-selective) comp has just given itself a huge pat on the back for getting 92% 5 A* - C. They look great in the league tables, a 22% increase from 2009, but this is the first year they have included BTECs, NVQs etc. So an above average school now looks a super school if you just go by the tables.

tittybangbang - the illiterate parents won't be on education forums moaning about selection.

Said 10 year old will probably fit in quite happily in given school, find his own depth and not feel left behind.

Well round in this part of Herts:

Parmiters - approx 45 places per year through academic ability, lots of tutoring (I know kids who've got into v good private schools locally including Habs, but not P); 15 places musical ability (don't bother to turn up unless you're grade 4 or above in year 6); those living very near to school; and siblings of all the above. Selection by £££ whichever way you look at it

st G's harpenden - bang a bishop of at least 2 different Christian denominations

There are other high-peforming secondaries in the area and in practice you have to live pretty close to them - ie selection by mortgage. Renting for specific purpose of getting into one of these is not unheard of.

The League Tables are pointless - at least the raw number of different grades are, as they tell you more about what children go to the school than about if the school will help your child get better results.

whyamibothering - that assumes a great deal. Not least some weird adherence to a discredited, late-Victorian notion of heredity.

It is also deeply unpleasant, if I'm reading it correctly in its implications.

I hope I'm mis-reading.

Sorry animula???? Didnt mean to offend or be unpleasant in the slightest. Victorian? I have no idea of Victorian heredity?

Was merely stating that one size does not fit all. Some parents are happy with given school and likewise some children will fit happier in to a non-selective school with less academic pressure.

Is that less offensive or unpleasant? I truly did not wish to imply anything other than fact.

I see what you're saying, I think I over-reacted.

I do see things a little differently, though. I agree with the poster who said that these schools select by performance , rather than ability. And I also think that, within that, there is a strong element of parental "ability".

Which means an awful lot of potentially able children are filtered out. At 11. Which means it's not about schools that suit the child, at all.

At the age of 10/11 there aren't that many children that have the wherewithall to put themselves in for the exams; it's up to the parents to do it.

And no, it's not a question of "like parents, like child"; to be selecting on parental ability to jump through hoops, means to be assuming a great deal about their offspring.

I think I may have read your post to be implying that the offspring of the sort of parents who couldn't get their children into a school where there is a music teaching/instrumental tuition; into a school teaching to a standard where they have covered all the subjects in maths and english likely to come up in entrance exams; couldn't access the information necessary to apply to these schools; couldn't organise themselves to apply on behalf of their child were automatically a bit "thick" (with the further implication being that their parents were too, and that's why they didn't do these things,) and therefore wouldn't be capable of passing the entrance criteria anyway, and wouldn't be at home there should they (weirdly and freakishly) get in.

You are right about one size not fitting all. And that some parents actively don't choose these schools.

(Btw - the long ramble was an explanation of why I was getting shirty about the Victorian heredity thing. Which would otherwise make no sense,)

Oh animula, no... your last paragraph wasnt at all what I was implying. I know full well how difficult school admissions are which was why I posted earlier about the general unfairness of the whole system.

I have two children - the eldest, a girl, worked hard yet achieved less than average results because she was a slow learner. I didnt dream of entering / coaching / her for a selective school because I knew she would struggle, and be unhappy because of it.

Second child, son, gained music place at selective school. Could be good academically if put mind to it - predicted 10 good GCSE's.

Very different children from same family, same parents. One size school does not fit all.

"Said 10 year old will probably fit in quite happily in given school, find his own depth and not feel left behind"

Said ten year old may well fail GCSE's, have a baby at 16, and spend the rest of her life on benefits before dying a premature death at around retirement age.

How horrible - the idea that the children of the poor and uneducated are ok with a second rate education because it's really all about 'knowing your place'.

Bright children can be born into unemployed and dysfunctional families too you know!

whyamibothering - you get thick posh kids at very good private schools where they study alongside other children who are very, very bright indeed, and it doesn't seem cause them huge damage to their self-esteem. Why should it be a problem for the rest of our children?

I really wish this mania for masses and masses of qualifications would pass. And I speak as someone who fell for it.

Ds is in a high-achieving (exam-wise) school , and I do think that a more laid-back school would have suited his personality better, and allowed him to flourish.

But because it's all so fierce out there, I didn't have the nerve to hunt out a school like that (do they still exist??), and actually send him to it.

So I do wonder, if second time around (with dd), I'll be one of those parents actively not looking for something different.

Probably not. Like everyone else, I'll be worrying that I'd be sending my child out with a stick and hoop, when everyone else has roller-skates.

"I want my daughter to go through selection by ability as that is the best way of ensuring that she is stretched academically and achieves her potential."

I had (sort of past tense) a friend who kept on saying that, to the point that they moved to an area that had a full-on grammar/sec-mod system in order to ensure that the child of the academic parents didn't have to mix with the dim children (his words).

Unfortunately for that plan, the child has learning difficulties and would have failed the 11+ by a country mile. They've now moved again because - quelle surprise! - the special needs provision in areas like that isn't terribly good because all the money's being funnelled into the grammars. The friend (past tense) part is because I prodded him one time too many over the rather sudden change of heart about the 11+.

People like academic selection because they assume their children will be on the right side of the line by virtue of the parent's degrees. As soon as it looks like that isn't the case, they suddenly discover an interest in a more egalitarian system. Odd, that.

"actively looking for something different".

Seriously, i am so worried that our children are going to be so cross when they look back on all this. These exams eat their adolescence. And it cannot be necessary. It is just a mad armaments escalation.

tittybangbang - you are interpreting my words too.

Yes said 10 year old could fail GCSE's, have a baby at 16 and live off benefits.

So could genius offspring of wealthy professional background.

Failure is not limited to as you put it, children of the poor and uneducated.

It's not about knowing your place at all in the sense of class. It's about being happy. Like I tried to point out - I have two children with totally different abilities. Each would have been unhappy in each other's environments. Horses for courses, etc. I didnt say anything was a problem for any child apart from struggling in an atmosphere that doesn't suit them. That can apply to any child regardless of background.

Please don't read more into what I was saying. My children have suffered parental unemployment during their schooling. Their father is poor - (working low paid) I'm just saying that they went to different secondary schools that catered for their individual needs. We can't all go to selective schools. It just doesn't suit some anyway.

whyamIbothering - I think the problem is that a lot of us are concerned that selection selects by parents to do x, y, z rahter than by dc's ability ... . So you're thing about different schools for different children is open to a different interpretation.

I'd love for education to be all about schools that really suit our children. I'd probably choose some hippy, Summerfield-type school. And then they could all study on into adult-hood, should they so wish.

And in my dream state, there would be (far) higher income taxation, so that the engine of social change, equality, etc, is moved from the sphere of education (all that responsibility on such young shoulders!) moves into the economic sphere. There wouldn't be so much income-disparity, based on qualifications, achieved in this teeny, tiny window of time.

But I'm dreaming. And it would seem that the British public do not like this.

Hence school craziness.

You're right animula, spot on.

The whole secondary transfer process isn't equal for everybody. It varies across borough, district, county and facilities differ to.

I may have wanted a single-sex school. I may have wanted a faith school. I couldn't because there aren't such near enough to guarantee entry from home address. Is that discrimination? Yes, if you care to analyse it. Only girls living 0.5 miles from a single sex comprehensive can go there.

So by taking the selection thread deeper - every school - regardless of specific criteria - is actually selective by some means.

Some areas specify 3 choices, some specify 6. Some areas offer all types of school, others do not. The whole transfer system is basically unfair to some, there are no solutions and it always will be unfair to some. Yes school craziness