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?

Why do t you look at the proportion of student who go to good Uni's as a measure? Why concentrate on GCSE?

"Why do t you look at the proportion of student who go to good Uni's as a measure? Why concentrate on GCSE?"

Yep. Might do that next. In the meantime............

"It's rather misleading to call schools which are non-selective in Kent "High schools". There are academies, free schools and faith schools (and probably others) and the vast majority stream within the schools"

What would you like to call them? High schools is what they call themselves. Self identification and all.......

Ok. This is move the goalposts til I can make the statistics say what I want them to say.

Good luck with that

It's also harder because I presume that not all children take the 11 plus and decide to go a grammar school.

So have you really got all the children in Kent taking the 11 plus and if they pass, then they all go to a grammar school and if they fail, they go to another school?

What percentage of children take the 11 plus in Kent and what percentage of those children who pass then go to a grammar school?

It's very complicated.

"Ok. This is move the goalposts til I can make the statistics say what I want them to say"

Sorry- I am really not doing that!

I'm not sure the statistics can be used to prove anything about grammar schools.

Except that if you pass the 11 plus and attend a grammar school, then you will probably get a good result.

Bertrand - you decided a very long time ago that you believe in an entirely comprehensive education system. Yet you also live slap bang in the middle of the educationally most selective and diverse county in England. When there are other choices, why don't you move elsewhere?

Except that if you pass the 11 plus and attend a grammar school, then you will probably get a good result

Which still doesn't really prove anything about grammar schools.

I just don't think you can look at one measure. I think you need to look at several measures in order to form an opinion and compare systems.

If grammar schools system and comp system get equal results it doesn't prove they are equally good. The grade profiles might be significantly different and outcomes of A levels might also be very different.

When there are other choices, why don't you move elsewhere

This is not about a poster. This should be about grammar schools.

And the whole school system.

Where is the EVIDENCE that grammar schools in an area help bright pupils in that area?

Who gets to define bright?

A friend of mine's daughter passed the 11 plus for a local grammar school but did not get the place because she was outside catchment.

More grammar schools would still mean people would miss out. Or the level of 'brightness' would go down as more places are available.

Who gets to define 'bright'?

Which still doesn't really prove anything about grammar schools

Exactly. It's just a statement. If you went to a grammar school, you probably got a good result.

Correlation is not causation.

Northern Ireland is an area and as a wholly selective area where there is no ability to move to a comp area, gets better results by quite some way, than any selective or comp area in the rest of the uk

However it gets lower results than England in international testing. Which makes no sense unless something else is going on. Those school leavers with higher results shouldn't be less numerate and literate.

Bobo. It won't matter in six months as her DS will get in to Grammar at sixth form level. Bertrand's son should have got in to the grammar at 11 and didn't for some unknown reason.

He would have made to grammar school under the proposal that perhaps with a 35% range. 25% passing the 11+ as currently used but the remaining 10% could come from other means such as accepting someone's 11+ score was not representative. This could work when evidenced against their school work or IQ.

Grammar schools can't "lift" grades. Do some people think that grammar schools are magic, with special books, blackboards, pens etc? Students in grammars have to earn their grades, the same as everybody else, they aren't just handed them on a plate. I think a lot of grammar students would get bored and slack off in a high school, and I think most high school students wouldn't keep up with a grammar workload (more coursework, they start essay writing earlier etc). Primary schools should be offereing as much help to pass the tests as possible though. We had school "club" once a week for two years, where we (the kids sitting the test) got extra coaching once a week for 2 years. Yes I'm envious of people who can afford private tutors for thier kids, but not bitter about it. I will do my best with ds, when the time comes to "prep" him (not sure if there's extra coaching at his school or not). If he doesn't want to do it, or fails, he'd do better in the local high school, and I'll help him through his gcse's as much a possible either way.

Can someone explain the difference between comps and moderns please?

Comprehensives take the whole ability range as do 'Modern' schools. So in reality Modern schools are Comprehensive in their raison detre .

I think a lot of grammar students would get bored and slack off in a high school, and I think most high school students wouldn't keep up with a grammar workload

How do you decide fairly who is a grammar student and who is a high school student?

What if you have a student who just fails to get to a grammar school but would keep up with the workload?

"However it gets lower results than England in international testing"

What are you basing that on?

www.itv.com/news/utv/2016-11-29/children-in-ni-in-global-top-six-for-maths-performance/

"I think a lot of grammar students would get bored and slack off in a high school, and I think most high school students wouldn't keep up with a grammar workload"

Well, yes, probably. But nobody is suggesting anything like that happens.

They would be in the top stream in high school, and not miss out too much. As I said, high school teachers often go above and beyond to make sure the top students/late bloomers do well.

PISA tests

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38223132

High performance at primary school - particularly in maths - tails off at post-primary school. That seems to be the message for Northern Ireland from the two big international education studies published over the past week.
However, due to the nature of the studies themselves, drawing blunt conclusions is not straightforward
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) said our primary school pupils were the best at maths in Europe.
The Pisa study suggests our 15 year olds are average - on average - when it comes to global tests in maths, science and reading.

I'm not clear on why discussion must be limited to Great Britain?

If it's just Kent you want to talk about there are all kinds of kent factors that are relevant. It has huge wealth and huge deprivation virtually side by side. There is huge competition for grammar paces including from outside Kent. Schools are not simply grammar and secondary modern. There are free schools, comprehensives with grammar streams, a number of very good indies. There are more than one 11+ test, some grammars have their own entrance test.

As an additional element to grammar discussion, locally to me the grammars are almost all (as far as I can tell) single sex. The impact of this is worth considering.

They would be in the top stream in high school, and not miss out too much

Isn't that an argument for no grammar schools - and streaming in all schools regardless of selection?

And appropriate workload so the pupils in the top stream don't get bored and slack off?

Kent, for example, is wholly selective
The following is an excerpt from Kentadvice regarding Radio Kent's big grammar school debate.
'One ex-head who left an underperforming and unpopular primary school in Kent apparently for a political life, described the county as ‘delivering really poorly at GCSE compared with comprehensive areas, having coming 60th,’ and illustrated this on his Twitter Account by a reproduction of a small section of the National Table, with Kent neatly and misleadingly at the bottom. This is actually an excerpt from the BBC GCSE Table of 2015, and not only avoids mentioning that there are 152 Local Authorities in the country, placing Kent in the top 40% of all Authorities, so hardly delivering poorly, let alone ‘really poorly’, but he also fails to mention we come well above nearby Authorities, East (down at 115th) and West Sussex, both wholly comprehensive, but also Essex (at 85th), with just four super selective grammar schools. This level of misinformation, sometimes appearing to reach Trump standards, really does damage the case.'

So the example of Kent wholly selective system vs Sussex wholly comprehensive system shows that Kent does indeed do better.

"There is huge competition for grammar paces including from outside Kent"

Only for the few superselectives. The "normal" grammars take anyone who passes, with a distance criterion.