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?

I actually went to grammar in NI and am dyslexic, they had excellent provision for me. I just did the same English GCSE as everyone else.

Wickedlazy - the secret is that they're Indian, African, or Chinese. They have often have cultures where nothing is more important than school, not weddings/holidays or even funerals.

I moved to NI from London and I do agree that the NI system isn't really representative because there are other factors at play: smaller class sizes, better work/life balance for parents equating to more parental contact time, the influence of churchgoing on a larger proportion of children, happier teachers (generally), 96% English speakers etc etc. I don't think the attainment can be pinned specifically to the system (although it clearly does work here). It was a huge part of why we moved - it's just overall a better environment for children.

East Sussex --- 60% (news.eastsussex.gov.uk/2016/08/25/improvement-in-gcse-results-in-east-sussex/)

West Sussex 61.5% (www.westsussex.gov.uk/news/gcse-results-up-in-west-sussex/)

So... both better than Kent?

Yes I totally agree with high schools giving top stream students, the same opportunites as grammar school. Teachers will often go above and beyond, with extra revision classes and study groups etc to ensure the kids understand the syllabus.

Kent - 63.7% Grade C or above English and Maths 50.4% Attainment 8

East Sussex - 63.1 % Grade C or above English and Maths 49.3% Attainment 8

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35364398

Bertrand Knows full well that Trafford for instance out performs the equally wealthy neighbouring Comprehensive areas of Cheshire East and Warrington South . However, when other posters have highlighted this fact . The 'Collective' (I.E The Mumsnet E.ST. ) state that Trafford does not Count .

Bertrand it is not just the fabled Wellington of Trafford's 'Moderns' that beat /equal the Comps in Lymm or 'Osborne' Constituency towns but 'incredibly' includes ' Broadoak' School in 'Partington' that if any one knows is one of the poorest places in GTR Manchester. This is despite the school having 59.9% FSM and slap back in the Middle of nowhere surrounded by a selective system that takes '40%' not 25% attained 65% GCSE last year.

However, unlike Bertrand i know the question is not as simple as quoting one area but then i don't ask answers for 'Binary' Questions . This is especially true with regard to educationally opportunities.

I wanted my children to be happy at school. It's not specifically about mixing with "nice" kids.
I also wanted them to mix with people who were excited about learning.
My DD was teased about wanting to learn.

chocolatecoin thanks for telling us how SEN children can fare in the 11+ in NI. I have to say it sounds fairer than anything in England for the 11+ for those children with SEN to gain entry. In England on an EHCP a named school can be given where the child WILL attend post 11 - but they would still have to pass the 11+ for the grammar (extra time and scribes can be given for that) and only a small % of children with SEN have an EHCP, so even if a grammar could be named innit, and the test "skipped" it wouldn't be a route open to many.

There are no plans in the pipeline for children with SEN to have fairer access to any new grammar schools in England.

I don't think you can compare counties easily.
Cambridge and Norfolk are next to each other but aren't the same!

They do get better grades at Grammar schools. That what the league tables prove. There are often normal high schools who also get good results, but Grammar schools are usually up there at the top somewhere.

For those comparing Sussex results with Kent, I don't know Sussex at all really, are there deprived areas in Sussex as there are in areas of Kent (some parts of Thanet for example). Genuine question btw.

It might be better to break the question down into smaller units, for instance I am wondering how it works in say Northern Ireland.

"They do get better grades at Grammar schools."

It would be a bit shocking if they didn't. What with only having high ability kids and all..........

It's also because they have stricter rules and an expectation that the kids will do well, and they are pushed to exceed, whereas that might not be the case so much in a normal high school.

I also wanted them to mix with people who were excited about learning

And to have teachers be able to deal with pupils who disrupt others learning and have a negative attitude to learners.

Often it's not so much that the kids there have higher ability but that they are coached how to pass the entrance exam.

What grammar schools do is provide social mobility for the middle classes who can't afford to send their kids to a top private school but who can afford tuition fees and an expensive uniform. Very few pupils from a lower income background will get in based on the current tests, but they are potentially more available to massively wider section of society than private schools are. Which is why the Conservatives (now) like them - they will benefit people who do or might vote for them.

When grammar schools were abolished and private school fees became more out of reach, effectively a smaller elite of society has been allowed to be created.

I'm not saying the PM is necessarily going about it in the right way, but she is more egaltiarian in her thinking than Cameron in trying to open things up to a huge swathe of middle income parents.

The right way to go about it would be to abolish fee-paying schools to start with.

At dd's school , they were thoroughly prepped by the teachers, no coaching needed. I don't think this normally happens in England in grammar school areas?

Anyway. Back to the question.....

The one thing that can be said is that children who go to a Grammar school will get better results in GCSEs.

But...did the grammar school help them get better results?
If they had gone to an outstanding non grammar, would they have got the same results..
If the Grammar school helped get better results, is it fair that a child who missed out by 1 mark did not get to that school and went to a local non selective school would have missed out?

Not all bright children can go to Grammar schools.

I have a low ability child and she didn't like being in a comp either. It exacerbated her feelings of failing to be in groups of children all whom would do better.

I think it's widely accepted that fee paying schools and grammar schools get better results. Whether it's because of smaller numbers or stricter discipline, I don't know. I don't think abolishing them is the answer.

It's not always about the percentage passing, but the grades they get.

It is fascinating how, even on a thread specifically asking it, practically nobody wants to address the question asked..............