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 don't blame private schools. But they are part of the problem. Because we have legislators making decisions about schools that they have no experience of and which their own children will never attend.

The original question?

Because we have legislators making decisions about schools that they have no experience of and which their own children will never attend

And making decisions about grammar schools based on feelings, not evidence.

If you spend public money, it has to be spent effectively and based on evidence.

Yeah, grammar schools are part of the Janet and John, warm beer, spinsters cycling to Matins, everyone leaving their doors open 1950s world so many hanker for.

The clever gardener's boy being spotted by the kindly squire and sent to the vicar for coaching........

When Britain ruled the waves and we knew our place in the world?

Did you mention cricket?

"Fifty years on from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and, as George Orwell said, 'Old maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist' and, if we get our way, Shakespeare will still be read even in school"

Pfff. One of my aunt's was sent to the girls' grammar in Rye in the 1950s (my grandparents had a fifth child after her by accident and wanted to save their cash to educate him privately. My other aunt had been to Benenden). There was nothing romantic about the experience. She didn't go to university even though she is (a) extremely clever (b) both her parents were Cambridge Firsts.

aunts

aunts

I think that's just semantics-or have I missed something?

You could be right - I genuinely don't know the answer! My opinion is coloured by my own experience at primary school where everybody had to sit it and therefore everybody who went to the non-Grammars had failed the 11+. I don't know if that still happens anywhere though.

"There was nothing romantic about the experience."

Rather my point.

I'm rather shocked that grammars are viewed as part of something people hanker to. To me, they're just part of life. They're not some 1950s empire idyll.

Anyway. Not many people seem interested in my question. Which is a bit odd, becuse surely before you support a policy you want to be sure it's effective?

But I and others ARE interested. And we live in an exclusive grammar area. But our experiences don't match the confirmation bias and fallacy in your original question.

To me, they're just part of life

In England, grammar schools are controversial. Hell, the whole system of education is controversial.

All children should be able to attend a school that caters for them and helps them achieve to their full potential.

If people have seen Yes Prime Minister, there is an episode on this - the National Education Service. It's fascinating - and predicts academisation.

"I'm rather shocked that grammars are viewed as part of something people hanker to. To me, they're just part of life. They're not some 1950s empire idyll."

There are very few grammar schools in England. And only a handful of wholly selective areas. There are plans to open more. Hence the question.

Which is a bit odd, becuse surely before you support a policy you want to be sure it's effective

All Government has a history of supporting policies in education and other areas without checking it's effective

But I and others ARE interested. And we live in an exclusive grammar area. But our experiences don't match the confirmation bias and fallacy in your original question."

I understand that NI outperforms all English authorities. That is a useful piece of data. But the primary school system is different, the culture is different, and the exam boards are didfferent.

This is interesting. The Lord's debate on Grammar schools

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-10-13/debates/611F8809-D3EF-4B69-B180-08A05361BB45/GrammarSchools

Why is it not a good example to use?

How many EAL students are there? How many ethnic minority students? How many students arrived in year 10 from a non English speaking country? Out of those immigrant children how many attended grammar schools? How many SEN children are in mainstream?

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.

Back in the 1980s Burnley had grammar schools, selection at 14 rather than 11 though.

All students went to the comp and at 14 the grammar schools creamed of the top sets at all the 'comprehensives'.

Except for the RC schools. The RC students' grammar was in Blackburn and they had gone totally comp so the RC high schools became comps.

The top sets of the RC schools got the same sort of results as the grammars, the lower sets at the RC schools got similar results to the high schools.

Obviously not an ideal comparison but probably as good as you can get.

Bert

As you rightly have stated a number of times no one is answering your question. In fact it is difficult to answer because we have very few "wholly" selective areas in the UK.

However a brief mathematical analysis of the results of each LEA according to the attainment 8 results has shown that actually areas with more grammar places do on average achieve better results.

Of the top 8 LEA's ranked by Attainment 8 score 6 of them have more than 10% of state children in selective schools and in fact 5 of those have more than 20%.

Ah..faith schools. Without going off topic, faith schools seem to do better than non faith schools.

I suspect it's not the faith element. But then you have a whole load of factors to consider and when you go into the data, certain issues stick out - such as location, housing, selection...

Just another point to add to my stats the other two LEA's which have an ave attainment 8 score in the top 8 but have no grammar schools have a very high % of pupils in independent schools which may be because there are no grammars in those areas.

If it's an entirely comp area then you get selection by postcode. Which seems almost as bad really.
What's more ethical - distributing children via Parental wealth or via an exam?
People who laud the virtues of comp presume they are all the same.

What's more ethical - distributing children via Parental wealth or via an exam

I think in Brighton, they do / did distribution by lottery - so you had no choice over the school.

How do schools outside the UK do it? Education is pretty universal - so looking at other school systems must tell us something.

No system will ever eliminate educational injustice entirely. Richer catchments will always tend to have schools with fewer social issues to contend with.