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?

Northern Ireland, which is wholly selective, gets 79.1%

"why don't wholly selective areas
get significantly better GCSE results, than wholly comprehensive ones?"

To answer your question, you have been given a factual example of a wholly selective area, that gets significantly better GCSE results, than wholly comprehensive areas. Because selection can produce better results.

To be fair though, the English system generally baffles me.

How many grammar schools are there in Kent compared to non selective schools?

How are they spread out? Surely looking at a local area say around Canterbury would see the impact of the grammars?

But then..you are selecting already - as you are localising an area and there may well be people who have moved to that area where a grammar school is to get into that area - and that impacts on house prices, local schools, tutors etc - and all the effect that has on local schools.

Please don't tell me it would have done her good. It was frustrating at best.
Fighting against apathy is difficult, both for the parents and pupil when you stand out for doing so.

LittleIda, if he passed the test, grammar schools have excellent provision for dyslexic students, realistic expectations in subjects like English lit etc.

Northern Ireland is actually a really good example, in my opinion, because the moving to select school doesn't really happen, because the whole area is selective, and you'd have to leave the country to not be in a selective area.

As he is in a lower English set at a comp there's a good chance he would not pass the 11+.

Yes, but it doesn't explain why wholly selective areas in England don't do better than wholly comprehensive ones. Which was my question.

It's because they are all studying the same GCSEs, thicko and selective alike?

It is interesting about the NI statistics... I'm left asking "how do they outperform England so resolutely? And why are they the exception to the general rule?"

Is it because there has been less "tinkering with the system" in NI over the last 50 odd years by the govt? If England had been left two tier, would it be similar?

Either way, I still feel that grammars would e a backwards step... our system in England is largely geared towards comprehensive teaching - fewer special schools, more rounded teacher experience, different exams, much larger schools for the most part.

Let's say it takes us 50 years to catch up to NI ... is it ok to experiment on the millions of children who would experience the chaos of systematic changes in England as a result? I think not.

ego exactly. What I object to is that because my DD did well, it gets attributed to the comp system. When it was in spite of rather than because of.

Bertrand. You didn't say England in your op?

By the way there are wholly immigrant comprehensive areas in the Midlands that kick NI's ass when you look at results considering many of these kids didnt speak English when they arrived. NI doesn't really get an awful lot of non-English speakers - most immigrants come to England, Wales and Scotland because there are more jobs

Yes, but it doesn't explain why wholly selective areas in England don't do better than wholly comprehensive ones. Which was my question

Is that a hard question to answer though?

Ideally, you would need 2 LEAs with similar KS2 results, similar parental backgrounds, school funding etc - but one would be wholly selective and other non selective.

Is there a similar LEA to compare Kent with so you can say that selection / non selection is the only difference?

It not just about results. It's about being in a nice school, with other nice children and with fewer social problems.

We get a lot more non english speakers than you'd think. Mostly Polish.

It's about being in a nice school, with other nice children and with fewer social problems

I am sure most parents want their children to be in a nice school with nice children and few social problems.

How do you select for that?

Loads of polish kids went to DD grammar.

In Northern Ireland, I think because it is such a totally selective system there is less social selection, for want of a better phrase.

Plenty of kids from less advantaged backgrounds went to the grammars. DD being one.

"It's about being in a nice school, with other nice children and with fewer social problems"

So this is what it's really about? Parents thinking children will be happier in grammar schools, despite academic ability? Taking away selection from grammars, will somehow solve the problems in the other schools? If you can't keep up in a grammar school, you could be teased just as badly as for being a goody goody, swot or teachers pet in a high school. Although I imagine the former would be worse for self esteem.

Wickedlazy - the comp schools I'm talking about in the Midlands have upwards of 50 percent non-english speakers - they won't speak any at 5-6 then come out with 10 GCSE A stars.

*Ideally, you would need 2 LEAs with similar KS2 results, similar parental backgrounds, school funding etc - but one would be wholly selective and other non selective.

Is there a similar LEA to compare Kent with so you can say that selection / non selection is the only difference?*

I guess Sussex might be a good one to compare with, since both are south-East, pretty affluent, commuter belt counties.

wicked am I right to assume that whilst you get more Polish children than perhaps people would believe there aren't many (any?) NI schools where 60%+ of the school population speaks English as an Additinol Language (i.e. Not their home language)? An increasing phenomenon in parts of England!

"the comp schools I'm talking about in the Midlands have upwards of 50 percent non-english speakers - they won't speak any at 5-6 then come out with 10 GCSE A stars"

That's fantastic! What's their secret?

To answer a few questions from earlier, a child who is great at maths but dyslexic and struggling at English, can still go to a grammar school if they get a high enough score in the transfer test. Children with special needs can get extra time or a scribe for the test. Statemented children can skip the test and go to whichever school Ed psych recommends. Once at the grammar school they can still access special needs support, so can fly high in maths but have help for English. Plenty of kids at a grammar struggle in some subjects.

And for the clever child who misses out on a place by one mark, goes to the high school, in the top stream. Most decent high schools will give their top stream all the same opportunities as a grammar school. It's not a perfect system, and I dislike the feeling that children have, of failing at 11. But it's the only system we have here.