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 live in France, where the country is divided up into catchments. DC go to the maternelle/primary/middle school that their home address is attached to. From 15 there is selection.

^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)?^

Yes to all of the above.

Just because grammar schools select the most "intelligent" children doesn't mean those children will automatically perform better in exams and coursework. I went to a grammar school but didn't do particularly well, because I simply did not want to put the time and effort into trying to do well. My school didn't have particularly higher results than any other school in the area, probably mainly for the reason that a lot of us simply did not care enough to try as much as we could

Mumski- please could you link to he source of those figures?

DC go to the maternelle/primary/middle school that their home address is attached to

Is there selection by house price?

Do people know how good a school is?

I just think that if people are really honest, they want grammars for their children as a way of avoiding "difficult" pupils. I can't think of other reasons why they need a different building for their schooling. Even a grammar stream in the same school would allow for flexibility to move in and out as children mature.

I have a dc in selective education we aren't a fully selective area. My dc is extremely bright (reading and writing before starting school, very articulate, very stem subject orientated) and their primary school and "one size fits all education" completely failed them. They didn't learn anything new that hadn't been learnt 2 years prior (in extension classes) and were invariably used as a TA which meant they came home bored and frustrated.

I feel children like mine at the bright end of the scale have as much right to a tailored education as at the other end of the spectrum.

Fwiw the selective schools here are among the best performing state schools in the UK.

We are a FSM household btw

When did they say they were going wholly selective like Kent?

So you reject NI stats because allegedly the two are different( but really it's because it doesn't back your point of view)but you are using a system that is different to the proposed model to back your view because it has the stats you want.

Isn't that cherry picking?

I thought the government was bringing in a system akin to Essex (a couple per county to service the small percentage of bright students) rather than Kent (wholly selective) am I wrong?

"When did they say they were going wholly selective like Kent?"

They didn't, as far as I know. And I didn't feel that NI was a good comparator because there are too many different variables, including a completely different primary school system, and different exam boards.

However, and you may have missed this, Mumski appears to have found figures that actually do prove me wrong!

In addition to the NI evidence, there is also the fact that the areas who have the most success at sending pupils to Oxbridge tend to have selective schools within them. 8 out of the top ten if my memory serves (though please don't put any money on my memory serving).

My experience is similar to yours playonwurtz. One of my DC is at the brighter end of the scale and his teaching in state primary was woeful. We were told that there was no need for differentiation, even with homework, and that to differentiate would just complicate matters. My child was finishing his work quickly and then being left to help others who were struggling to finish. He was bored and frustrated. He gained an out of catchment place at a state grammar (no grammars in my LEA) bit he also got offered a full bursary to 2 independent schools. We took one off e independent offers up as it was my sons first choice school and location was much easier. I never thought we would go down the selective education route and o dos contemplate that things might be better at the comp than at primary due to streaming etc.
We didn't go selective to avoid behavioural issues - they exist everywhere but we did go selective to try and get an education that we felt was best suited to our child's needs - just like we did with our other child who is at the other end of the spectrum and is in special education for children with severe learning disabilities.

And I think that selection by house price is by far the most damaging type of selection because no matter how bright a child is and how Motivated the parents are, if they don't have the money to buy a house in the required area then they have zero chance of attending that school

Yep. Some combination of fair banding and lottery is the only way forward, really.

What system we end up with depends entirely on whether they only allow existing grammars to expand (best option), allow new selective free schools to open (not great but it would put a limit on numbers to some extent), or allow current schools to convert (in which case any school worth its salt is already preparing its conversion plans and we could end up effectively two tier across the country).

Also, I know people bang on about selection by postcode - does anyone know the stats for proportions of poor kids in good/outstanding comps versus the proportions of poor kids in grammars? Are disadvantaged kids more likely to get into a good/outstanding comp, or a grammar school?

A lottery system means kids being transported all over the place at great cost financially and environmentally and of the govt don't cover transport costs then some parents won't be able to afford anything except the nearest school.

"A lottery system means kids being transported all over the place at great cost financially and environmentally and of the govt don't cover transport costs then some parents won't be able to afford anything except the nearest school."

What's your suggestion, then? The system would have to include free transport for disadvantaged families, obviously.

My suggestion is that the govt fund all schools adequately to ensure that every child can get a decent education. Within that funding they need to provide more additional
Support for schools that have high levels of disengagement and high levels of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps instead of grammar schools what we really need are additional units for the most disruptive pupils so that they can be easily removed from the mainstream system. We need to work on teacher retention levels and ensure that struggling schools get the best teachers. But it will never happen because school funding is being cut rather than increased.

How about stop throwing money at people and families who don't want to engage with education and support those that do. Controversial thought there but I am sick and tired of families that support their kids being given no help, the schools our kids go to are among the most poorly funded, yet kids behave like little shits and you disengage from supporting them and the government throws money at you.

Weird world we live in.

And in the real world?

How about stop throwing money at people and families who don't want to engage with education and support those that do"

Because, among other things, I don't want to live in a society with an uneducated disaffected underclass.

I agree but I am so utterly frustrated that yet again society is rewarding the can't be bothereds.

Perhaps to improve attainment we need parents to value education, and I can't see that happening any time soon, especially round here!

We already live in a society with an undereducated and disaffected underclass. Most of the kids / young adults in my extended family fit that description very well as do most of their friends / peers. These families have had a huge amount of money in support packages thrown at them
And it has led to nothing. Much better to remove them from
Mainstream education and let the masses have a disruptive free chance at being educated.

I'm in Bucks 100% selective, no comps, 11+ opt out.

Grade C or better Eng &a Maths nationally - 59.4%, Bucks 73.7