To ask a question of th grammar school supporters on here?

[BertrandRussell]

If selective education is so effective, why don't wholly selective areas get significantly better GCSE results than wholly comprehensive ones?

NI has grammar schools and gets much better GCSE results than the rest of the UK.

What halcyon said.

Northern Ireland has good grammars but great high schools as well (I have kids who went to both) and the high schools can focus on different areas of learning and provide less traditional routes to further education, training and apprenticeships.

There are all sorts of cultural and religious issues going on in NI that I think make it too complicated to compare. Happy to be proved wrong, though.

It's a wholly grammar system apart from one small area where the Dickson plan is used, with selection at 14 (I must double check the age)

It's not grammar and comp, it's very much grammar and high school.

Same selection in catholic and state schools - de facto 11 plus. Used to be one govt set test, now various private tests that admit to grammar schools.

Why can't it be compared? I'm interested as to why the experience is so different?

Just gone through both the GL and AQE here. After looking at what feels like every grammar/ secondary school in NI I havent found a secondary that comes close to a Grammar (esp cathloic grammars) He is our 1st to go through this so it was all new to us.

There's also the integrated sector, which should act like a comp, but is de facto high school. The grammars get really good results and the integrated is seen as 2nd choice.

I'm Protestant heritage, although atheist, DS Went to the high and DD to the grammar. For DS the high was definitely the right place and he thrived and his particular skills were nurtured and he went via BTEC AT tech to uni.

DD much more academic and did a levels and uni. Grammar definitely best place for her.

Locally, catholic grammar is streaks ahead of any other school in terms of results to echo what MrsRyan says.

I should think selective education is effective for children who go to those schools and who are taught in such schools.

But what happens to those children who just miss out. By 1 mark. Because it's full? They can get the crap schools, the coasting schools, the school with unengaged pupils.

I think the whole curriculum needs looking at, how engaging, useful and relevant it is.

We need schools that work for all. And that are given enough funding and freedom to do it - to meet the needs and variety of children who attend.

I think that's the difference here in NI - there's a long history of 11 plus and the high schools are v engaged (or maybe we were just lucky with DS's)

Link here www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/gcse-results-northern-ireland-students-outperform-rest-of-uk-34994457.html

In Northern Ireland, the exam board is CCEA. Most subjects have two exam options, higher tier and lower tier. Higher tier you can get a grade A to U. In the lower tier paper, a C is the maximum grade, because the higher paper is usually longer, more complex and covers additional material the lower does not. It's easier to get a C at lower tier than higher tier. The high schools just want the kids to pass, so often whole year groups bar a few will sit the lower tier exam. Which makes sense, better 50%+ C's and 15% C-A stars, than expecting too much and ending up with 50% D or lower. On the other hand, grammar schools will often have whole year groups doing the higher tier paper and aiming for C-A in certain subjects. The grammar school I went to refused to allow anyone to do the lower tier paper in maths, for example.

Can we set NI aside? It's obviously a very different set up to anything currently happening or proposed in England.

But England has higher and lower papers too?

Only in Maths, I think.

And grammar school (in NI at least) do more subjects at GCSE, usually 10, while most high school students will do 6 or 8. At A level, most high schools students do 3 subjects, right through, in some grammar schools the students do 4, and they can drop one at A2 level.

Northern Ireland is a wholly selective area that has been wholly selective since the church schools in the controlled/voluntary sector were handed over in the 1940s/50s. The CCMS administer the catholic sector. There are a few integrated schools and that sector is growing.

There are a small number of other faith schools (free Presbyterian schools for eg) and a few private schools but literally one or two.

It consistently out performs the rest of the uk at GCSE.

Why is it not a good example to use?

I'm in NI and every single person I know aspires to send their child to a grammar, from the wealthy to the single parents on benefits. Sadly there is a marked difference between the grammars and the highs. I went to both and I honestly can say they were worlds apart. I am against the selection process on principle but hypocritically because of the difference I go with it. My youngest ds has some additional needs so is unlikely to get into a grammar, although we are very fortunate to live near one of the better high schools.

I have no idea how the system in England works, although I do know that my ds has some English pupils in his year who moved here because of the much cheaper gramnar fees.

IT isn't always about the type if school though. My DD would come home from comp and then the real learning began. Fortunately I was able to help her with maths and science and she had a tutor for French.
Her results were not attributable to the school. Others did the same.
we perhaps wouldn't gave had to work quite so hard had she been in a school where they taught all the syllabus.

"It consistently out performs the rest of the uk at GCSE.

Why is it not a good example to use?"

Because it doesn't answer my question!

Dd has a friend at her comp who is fantastic at maths, but is dyslexic and in one of the lower sets for English. Which school would he go to in a grammar system?

If selective education is so effective, why don't wholly selective areas get significantly better GCSE results than wholly comprehensive ones?

That was your question?

Northern Ireland is a wholly selective area that gets significantly better gcse results. Therefore your premise is incorrect?

Others did the same. we perhaps wouldn't gave had to work quite so hard had she been in a school where they taught all the syllabus

And had the resources.
And the money
And the children who were engaged in classes.
Where behaviour was exemplary
Where teaching was appropriate and the curriculum met the learning needs.
And the teachers weren't under massive stress and pressure from above.

Etc etc

It's a good thing May is on that

LittleIda would depend on his result in whichever 11 plus test he took.

Dd has a friend at her comp who is fantastic at maths, but is dyslexic and in one of the lower sets for English. Which school would he go to in a grammar system

Quite

I'm glad you posted this Q in it's own right B&R I saw you repeatedly ask it on another thread and have it resolutely ignored.

In 2016 Kent (the last bastion of entirely two tier system?) saw an average A-C of 55% (www.heart.co.uk/kent/news/local/longfieldacademy-gcse-results-kent/)

The NE of England (no grammar schools) matched at 55% (www.google.co.uk/amp/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-gcse-results--12023683.amp)

I accept that the national average for 2016 was 52% so, clearly both of these example are above that - nevertheless it does make the post succinctly that grammars are not proving "better" for all - because then Kent would be miles ahead...