"I could never send my dcs to grammar school....

[winkywinkola]

...because I think it's unfair on all those children who can't get in because they couldn't afford tutoring for 11+. But I will send them to prep and boarding school."

I was a bit perplexed to hear this from a mum at the school gate. Aibu?

However your sen statistics are national...so like for like (national stats for both school types) it's similar. Bear in mind many areas there is boundary hopping occurring - Essex schools see entrants from Essex, Southend, Suffolk and most London boroughs.

If it was 4% in every county, that would be different. But a large proportion of the 4% will be children who aren't 'SEN level of high ability', while in some areas even those at the 1 in 10,000 level of ability where things really do get quite tricky (I know one child of this type, and they are different, in a way that no 'normally bright' 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 child is different) cannot access a 'special school for those whose SEN is exceptional ability'

I say again, Kent.

It's less than 4% if you look on a county by county basis...

Yes, they do thr aths challenges and have maths team which competes nationally, etc. However she will never be able to get higher than 7.9, or 8.9 etc per school year even.though she is far more capable than that.

But I expect this is the grammar's way of trying to show 'some' value added, over the course of their school career.

It's damned hard to show value added when your intake has 12 year olds who can pass Maths GCSE already. I mean, where the Hell do you go from there with them, when it comes to ticking boxes?

Whereas a child who cannot access mainstream school for reasons of disability, although the provision is patchy, can, in general, access a special school when their needs are severe enough.

Ma,

There is a lot of non-school maths that they can do. It's what happened to the 1 in 10,000 child i know at the age of about 10 /11 - interactive online lessons with a Maths academic, focusing on the areas of Maths that the curriculum doesn't contain.

As I said- there is an argument for separate schools for kids with "SEN" type cleverness. But most grammar school kids are in the top 23%, not the top 2%. There is no argument for that.

Bet you've just heaved a huge sigh of relief BR at teacher's very charitable attempt to bail you out

Funny that you disappeared though, not seeing fit to post the same explanation yourself because you hadn't thought of it

Again it depends on your area. In Kent, Bucks etc then yes it is the top quarter, but in super selective areas where perhaps there are between 1 and 4 schools covering a whole county plus border hoppers then it is more like the top 2%

So what's the justification for the top 25% being segregated, Confucius?

It's streaming on a grand scale

Yes, there is out of school maths stuff they can do...but it's not going to be part of the school's value added, is it?

So it's unfair to slate GSs for their apparent lack of value added, when the marking structure only ever allows the very brightest to only get a 7.9 in Yr 7.

They've even done away with the top sets doing Maths GCSE a year early, because it's not as beneficial for the school on paper. Value added, again...

Streaming is widely discredited.

Confucious, but streaming is ineffective, and used by relatively few comprehensive schools IME - setting for each subject (or group of subjects e.g. humanities; maths; English; performing arts; languages; PE) is used, because it's much more flexible and means pupils make better progress.

By who? You?

Why shouldn't the top 25% be segregated BR. After all, they're still segregated in comps through the streaming system. Top set pupils don't work with lesser able pupils. It's still segregation.

Not that you'll respond to me, of course, because my 'attitude is so repellent' I'm actually handing your arse to you, on a plate

By everybody.

Setting, on the other hand, is considered a good thing by most experts, and selective schools make it impossible.

Sorry, I meant 'sets' not streaming, above.

Streaming is not widely used in the comprehensive system IME.

Setting is almost universal.

Setting and streaming is the same thing. Separating the kids by ability

No, it is not the same thing.

let's consider my Maths Olympiad pupil who struggles in English.

In a grammar school system, he would fail the 11+.

In a streamed system, he could be in an appropriate stream for his Maths - which would be too high for his English - or vice versa.

In a setted system, he is top set Maths, lowest-but-one set English, which meets his needs.

Setting and streaming are completely different. Streaming is grouping by ability in all subjects- often based on performance in one. Setting is putting a child in an appropriate class for each subject

So yes, the selective system is streaming on a huge scale- but makes effective setting in many cases impossible.

I'm with Bertrand on this. I grew up in a grammar area, and am very, very pleased that my DCs are growing up in an area of excellent comprehensive schools with no grammar/secondary modern divide.

I have a friend who lives in a grammar school area. Her children go to a primary school in a working class area. She has been tutoring them for the 11+. In 20 years, not a single pupil from that school has passed the exam. That doesn't strike me as a system which benefits kids from deprived backgrounds.