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?

High schools is what they call themselves.

No they don't. They call themselves school, academy, just the name of the school, free school, RC school etc...

A question for those in Northern Ireland: do you do KS2 SATs like in England? We can't attribute GCSE success to a grammar system if actually the primary system is presenting all schools with awesome raw materials.

I'm also wonderingabout how if N. Ireland has its own exam board and exams do they know that the exams are of the same standard and the grade boundaries comparable.

Anyone know?

Teachers are already under enough pressure teaching the small amount of top stream students thet already have, additional material, (on top of their other classes, behavioural issues etc) without having more kids to teach and work to review and mark.

Trafford has grammar schools and is probably the most highly achieving education authority in the north west of England. Despite having grammar schools it also has some above average achieving high schools. Some of the grammar schools take a Percentage of students from out of catchment but most do come from within the catchment. The results at schools in Trafford are Much better than the results of the education authority which I live in and we have no grammar schools.

Teachers are already under enough pressure teaching the small amount of top stream students thet already have, additional material, (on top of their other classes, behavioural issues etc) without having more kids to teach and work to review and mark

Maybe if there were more teachers, more top stream students etc in non selective schools - along with more money, that would help.

With places like Trafford, could it be a case of, if more parents and schools are trying to get kids prepared to pass the entrance tests, the general education standard goes up a notch? Even if lots of the kids don't get into grammar schools, they still retain a lot of the stuff they learnt while trying? Iyswim?

ego that would be a good start. I was reading a thread in "the staffroom" earlier, and it's woeful how some teachers are being treated, and how many of them are looking for a way out of teaching :(

it doesn't explain why wholly selective areas in England don't do better than wholly comprehensive ones.

But are there an wholly selective areas in England? Kent certainly isn't one - nobody has to enter the 11+ there and many of the schools which are not Grammar schools are comprehensives, rather than secondary moderns. Of course, they are effectively closer to being secondary moderns because of the children going to the Grammars, but many very bright children don't enter the 11+ and go to them anyway. When I was at school (in Trafford) we all had to enter the 11+ and those who passed went to Grammar school and those who didn't went to Secondary Modern. That's a wholly selective area, but I don't know if it still works like that there.

But are there an wholly selective areas in England? Kent certainly isn't one - nobody has to enter the 11+ there and many of the schools which are not Grammar schools are comprehensives, rather than secondary moderns. Of course, they are effectively closer to being secondary moderns because of the children going to the Grammars, but many very bright children don't enter the 11+ and go to them anyway

I would love someone to say that to Theresa May when she justifies grammar schools

It's pretty unusual for parents in Kent to actively choose a high school...

A very controversial idea would be to have selection by 'attitude to learning'.

Schools where children go who don't muck round, play up, disrupt others and respect the system - thus giving everyone a chance to learn no matter what their ability.

But children can't help their attitude to learning...can they?

I can see why Bertrand is getting a bit frustrated here. Essentially, is there any proof that the overall results of kids across the whole ability range are better in a fully selective grammar/secondary modern system than in a comprehemsive system? Or is it the case that in a selective system the overall results would be pretty much the same (brighter kids' grades would improve a bit, weaker kids' results would correspondingly go down a bit)? Or would (as I suspect) the overall results actually go down because brighter kids tend to do well anyway, but weaker kids would be demotivated by 'failing' age 11.

It is unacceptable to reintroduce grammar schools for the sake of only maybe slightly improving the grades of the very brightest, as if improving the grades of the less bright were of little importance because... well... what are they going to need GCSEs for anyway eh?

It's pretty unusual for parents in Kent to actively choose a high school...

Unusual, yes, but I could name you several examples of students I have come across who did this.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not using it as a pro or anti Grammar school comment, just pointing out that I wouldn't describe Kent as fully selective when many children do not put themselves up for selection. I also always thought it was ridiculous that primary schools were not supposed to do preparation for the 11+ while prep schools could coach away to their hearts' content, but that's another story...

Are all pupils entitled to the same chances in this country?

You know what would have an impact - no private schools. Then the people in charge would have to take education seriously - and ensure high quality education for all, regardless of ability, and with teachers who don't go to grammar schools / private schools but are available for all pupils.

But then you'd probably get selection by house price. As you have now.

"Unusual, yes, but I could name you several examples of students I have come across who did this."

Well, yes, I know a couple too. I don't understand why that means Kent is not a wholly selective county........

I think thi have a good point wicked about the prep required for 11+ raising standards. But what does that tell us?
Does it tell us that we can raise standards by providing some intensive support to every child regardless of whether they are applying for grammar school or not?
Does it tell us that the majority of children are not learning to their capacity because they don't need to (because there is no grammar school goal)?
Or is it more about motivated and engaged parents living in areas where they are more likely to get a grammar place and this is what is artificially raising the standards?

(I know I'm not in Kent but) DS didn't even sit the 11 plus. He went straight to the high.

I don't understand why that means Kent is not a wholly selective county........

I thought that for a county to be wholly selective, everyone had to be entered for the 11+ and then sent to the 'appropriate' school according to their results, but in Kent no pupil has to do the 11+ and, officially, the non-Grammar schools are not secondary moderns in the sense of having pupils who did not pass the 11+, but are in fact comprehensives (albeit in reality stripped of most of those of the highest ability). But it may be that I have misunderstood fully selective and it only means that there is always a Grammar School available?

Having a look here: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/gcse-and-equivalent-results-2015-to-2016-provisional - 'LA tables' is the 3rd link down so you can see how different counties compare.

Kent (all selective) does worse than most of the rest of the SE, despite the move of some parents there to aim for the grammars and some from there to avoid the moderns. Still some parts of Kent where passing the test doesn't mean you have a grammar near enough of the right sex to be able to go to one. Lots of use of independent schools.

Bucks (selective) does well (has lots of kids travelling to grammars), but so does Slough which I've heard has lots of families who want to avoid Bucks' divisions at 11.

London - Sutton has a number of superselective grammars that take kids from across south London, so unsurprisingly they do well. But given kids from one primary may end up at 30+ secondaries in 10 boroughs, comparisons mean little.

Lincolnshire is 100% selective isn't it? Doesn't seem to do so well.

Ego - interestingly there are almost no private schools in Northern Ireland. I can only think of one proper fee paying private school and it's in Hollywood (excluding the free pree schools). There isn't really selection by house price because we are a rural area and in the cities like Belfast and L/Derry they're still small enough that it's possible to cross them for school.

Yes, a lot of Kent children don't sit the 11+.

You know what would have an impact - no private schools. Then the people in charge would have to take education seriously - and ensure high quality education for all,

Or, how about we adequately fund state schools and improve teachers pay and co sitcoms to attract the best teachers so that every child can have access to a good education instead of blaming private schools for the problems?

"I thought that for a county to be wholly selective, everyone had to be entered for the 11+ and then sent to the 'appropriate' school according to their results"

I think that's just semantics-or have I missed something? Most children who have a chance of passing do sit the 11+. And the school you attend is determined by the test, whether you sit it or not.

instead of blaming private schools for the problems

Not blaming private schools themselves - but the fact they exist does mean that pupils are creamed off to go to them.

If there were no private schools - or private hospitals - what impact would that have?