"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?

I suppose it gets back to whether or not you think selective education is a good idea per se. I have always thought not, theoretically before I experienced it practically, and even more then.

If you think it is a good idea, I do think you do have to a bit of convoluted thinking to explain away the negative impact on the majority. Maybe all these conversations need never happen if those in favour just said "I agree a shame, but a bit of collateral damage is a price worth paying"

"Bertrand we have three or four applicants for every place which is less than elsewhere but overwhelmingly to do with geography, nothing else. Not sure what you're trying to imply!"

I'm not trying to imply anything.ni am just fascinated that there is anywhere in the country, a super selective non catchment school which is a local school, and only requires top level 5 ish attainment, which (I think you said) is populated mostly by kids who live near the school, and which is not besieged by parents whose kids are being tutored to get top marks in the entrance exam and thus gazump the locals!

^How many pupils does a top set make?

Surely the fewer the better? I mean its only for what, one subject, then for history its all change and so on?^

I am not entirely sure what you mean by the fewer the better. I don't think schools are resourced to have top sets with very few pupils. Normally classes have about 30 pupils, so a top set in a SM for, say, maths will have a few able mathematicians who are not so good at other subjects while the rest of the class will be veering towards the average.

My education ideal is a non-selective school but with all subjects streamed and with a fluid movement between steams.

My comp only streamed for maths from Y7, and languages from Y9. So they never streamed for english and science or any other subjects.

It was a complete nightmare being in an extreemly mixed ability set for Engligh and Science at GCSE. Unfair on everyone involved.

At my dd's school, the lower the sets the smaller. More individual attention that way.

I think there might be a difference between your definition of local and mine so I might have given you the wrong idea. I'd say off the top of my head that most kids live within a ten to twelve mile radius of the school in an area which is not heavily populated in the same way as the SE is, though less sparse than than the Scottish highlands. So not local local perhaps.

"My education ideal is a non-selective school but with all subjects streamed and with a fluid movement between steams"

Sorry to be a pedant- but I think you mean setting, not streaming.

Yes, I agree. Many comprehensives do this.

WHois, that's 'setting' not 'streaming'. In practice presumably can't be done for less popular subjects but should be for the mandatory ones (and is, in many comps, isn't it?)

DDs school (GS) only set the maths from yr10 on, she wished they'd set the english too (and science according not so much by ability as by those who really wanted to do physics and who didn't but that's another story!). The top set was the largest, the two set twos a little smaller, a smaller yet set 4 and very small set 5 - which is exactly as it should be. (in the same way that, if you do have selective education, the GS should generally need less money and resources than the tech/SM!)

The comprehensives where setting does work though are those with either above average high achievers, or those with at least an ability curve in line with population curves. And only then if the school has sufficient good staff to ensure the top set don't just get the mediocre one.

It's not much of a top set if the ability range goes from easy pass upwards, and the teacher can't differentiate. And even with a top set where they'll all get a/a, there is a huge range of ability between a child who can get an a with a lot of hard work, and a child at the top end. Which again means good teachers who can differentiate across it.

You will have to change the LEA rules then. Because primary schools, certainly in Kent and I think in other places too, are expressly forbidden from offering more than a couple of practice papers

well yes, I would be lobbying them like mad, all sorts of things can be done to help. It just takes some imagination. Its for more than test papers.

Do you understand this? Or do you believe giving test papers is enough?

getahaircut

Interesting point re critical mass.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by the fewer the better

more individual attention!!

how can there be 30 in a top set at maths?

"Do you understand this? Or do you believe giving test papers is enough?"

No, I don't. I don't think any primary school- except the private ones geared up for the job-could possibly come close to the level of preparation many privileged children get. It is impossible to provide anything even remotely like a level playing field for selection at 10. Which is why it is inherently a wrong way to do things.

^I am not entirely sure what you mean by the fewer the better
more individual attention!!
how can there be 30 in a top set at maths?^

So you really do think that if there are only a few kids of top set ability, they should have a class all to themselves. Good luck with financing that! 30 is the normal class size in state secondary schools so the top set would simply be the 30 ablest children in that particular school. If most of the able children are being educated elsewhere, the top set would have a real mix of abilities.

If anyone should have small sets it should be the lower ability kids.

But as usual, people seem to think that the wants of the higher ability should take priority over the needs of the lower ability......

I've never come across a state school where the needs of higher ability children get any sort of priorty.

Really?

Oh yes, I forgot. High ability middle class children are the forgotten underclass of the education system.

I don't, Bertrand! It's got to be easier for the teacher to differentiate the work for able students who are often delighted to get extra problem sheets and work through them singly or in groups, than with the strugglers.

whois Our (only) local comprehensive still doesn't set for anything but maths, even for GCSE. It's not so bad for STEM-oriented students (science sets itself a bit, because of the distinction between double and triple science), but it really lets down the more able humanities-oriented students, like my DD2.

We don't have a lot of high ability middle class children in my DC's school. It isn't a middle class area. It would be nice however if they could find ways to support the high ability working class children that do attend the school.

Oh, Errol- brace yourself! You can't give high ability children worksheets!!!!!!...............

I was once practically accused of child abuse when I said I was quite happy for my high ability in English ds to be given an essay title and some reference books and told to have a go at it while the rest of the class did something else. "Not proper teaching" that wasn't. I should be fighting for him to have "proper teaching"..........

The ideal education system is - of course - one in which as many children as possible reach their full potential. And it seems to me obvious that a kid from an engaged family is going to need less help from the state than one from a chaotic family, and that a bright child who can learn more for themselves is going to need less concentrated teaching than others. So - yes I do think selective education can be a good thing, because one size doesn't fit all, but absolutely that more resources should be spent on the kids that need it most. Good 'technical colleges' capable of teaching vocational skills need more resource than academic subjects... and, well, its a cliche but true that we need more first-class plumbers than 3rd class media studies graduates saddled with loans.

Do bear in mind that the stats show that kids who've been too 'spoonfed' at excellent secondary schools don't always do quite so well when it comes to uni ... those large classes for top sets may be doing them a favour!

Bertrand ... ah, well somehow DDs school seems to get away with it just fine (probably because the kids had asked for more work...). Surely what you were doing could (rightly!) be sold as wonderful preparation for A levels and uni?

Giving high ability children reference books and an essay title would be frowned on in most schools. A big point of mixed ability teaching is for the higher ability children's input to help raise the ability level all-round, so they wouldn't be allowed to opt out of the discussions and group work that constitute a large part of current standard teaching methods. Also, working quietly on your own in the classroom tends to be frowned on, precisely because of the belief that group work and discussion are essential to every "good" lesson.

kesstrel really surprised to hear that there are still schools that don't set by ability for anything other than maths. Just seems so obvious to me it would make everyone's lives easier.

Sorry bert but just telling pupils to get on with it is awful practice. Just awful. If you're happy with it then more fool you.

I teach at one of the most selective universities in the UK and we don't do that with our students.

In fact we place a lot of emphasis on group work, where, naturally, we attempt to get critical mass of like ability peers.