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?

Phantommagic

Grammar school doesn't = no difficult pupils - I think that's a common misconception.

"

"Grammar school doesn't = no difficult pupils - I think that's a common misconception."

Oh, it does mostly!

society is rewarding the can't be bothereds.

These are children we are talking about. How early should we write them off exactly?

A very few. In comparison to a sec mod.

egosumquisum1 - yes, there is selection by house price though catchments are (re) drawn to try to mitigate this. This is not always successful as families opt out of low performing state schools and choose faith schools (which in France are private, state-subsidized, national curriculum schools) which select their pupils.

Bert the source is as follows:

Here for the Attainment 8 scores by LA

You will need the tab titled Table LA1

Here for the pupil numbers by school type

You will need the tab titled Table 7c for total pupil numbers in all state funded schools and selective state funded school and Table 7b for pupil numbers in independent schools.

A comparison of these tables shows the results I gave above.

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

I strongly agree with this statement. The problem is how do we reach these children before its too late. More funding would help but one of the biggest factors in my experience is parental involvement and support.

I don't know what effect free childcare for 2 year olds has had for disadvantaged families, but I did hear complaints of 'what do those families need free childcare for, they're not even working?!'.

Mumski45 - beyond parental involvement and support, I think that non-scholastic societal structures play an invaluable role in children's growth, especially once they hit secondary school. The enrichment opportunities available outside home and school have a huge impact on the engagement of DC in society.

Thank you, mumski. I don't think I can do that on my phone- it'll have to wait til later when I've got a bigger screen available!

These are children we are talking about. How early should we write them off exactly?

4 if they're bright and have engaged parents.

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.

I do know of a comp that has what is virtually a PRU in the school. It works well for the children who cannot be in mainstream setting but can access the curriculum.

The downside for the school is that the GCSE attainment is lower and brings down the figures.

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

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

Thomas Telford Comp - 98% 5 grade A*-C inc English and Maths

. The problem is how do we reach these children before its too late

In the case of my extended family the only thing that would have worked would have been for the children to be removed from their parents before the age of 5 and placed with loving supportive families. These children have had all
Kinds of social services involvement and educational interventions throughout their childhoods and yet they still form part of the undereducated and dysfunctional.

I'm talking about 3 children who spent almost the entirety of their senior education in pupil referral units - when they could be bothered to attend and having not a single qualification between them.
2 who became parents whilst under the age of 16.
2 who were in secure children homes by the age of 13 for committing serious criminal offences and several others who became parents shortly after leaving school, have zero qualifications, have never worked, have no desire to work but will Probably have to at some point due to universal credit rules.
And a couple of kids who went into local authority care as teenagers due to their behaviour and their parents lack of parenting.

I don't blame the children / young people for their fate as it is all down to the parenting and lifestyle that their parents have led but the next generation is probably going to follow suit. It saddens me, but in the area I grew up in these scenarios are all too common. Putting these kids in a lottery school allocation system would have made no difference as they don't value education and would have felt very different from kids who come from different backgrounds. I think they would have been more Likely to truant and become total school refusers than anything else.

I'm the black sheep of the family because I moved away from the area and now have a kid in a private school (albeit on a 100% funded place because we are piss poor). Most of my family refuse to speak to me.

I live in a city with a range of high schools - and yes, DS got into a pretty good school and house prices reflect that.

Does the house prices reflect the school or the school reflect the house price?

I am glad we don't have a lottery - and that is awful to say that - but the school that is struggling is in an area of social deprivation - and that has affected the school with all the issues that brings.

It must be really hard for parents whose kids attend that school because they don't have any choice.

Oh I thought you were joking, Playonwurz, because those kids have won the lottery.

Your comment is possibly the most self-pitying crap I've read in a while.

These are the top ten LA's when ranked by Attainment 8 score (ave of kids at state schools only not including independents) compared to the % of kids who attend a grammar school in that LA.

I thought it was interesting that the % of independent places is much higher where there are no grammar schools.

Interesting - mostly in the South...I wonder if any conclusions can be drawn?

Maybe people should move to the South?

I am and I'm not.

If a disaffected disengaged child recieved the level of support my dc have there would be outrage.

Playonwurz, I am pretty sure that the level of support your DC get far exceeds that of a disaffected disadvantaged child.

Those LAs seem to be pretty wealthy ones on the whole?

Oh! Oh! I know the NI answer. It's not comparable.

1. The system has effectively remained unchanged for around 50 years ( there have been some amendments...but nothing on the scale of elsewhere).
2. Again, with a few exceptions, their syllabi are smaller. In my subject the material covered is much smaller
3. It's a bit hard to tell with the GCSEs, but they are not really comparable. In my subject at the moment, they are significantly easier. Whatever way you look at it though, the lack of change will be the most significant factor, because if I'd been teaching the same syllabus for 25 years it would be pretty well flawless.

Why are they wealthy noble? Because the great schools have pushed up house prices meaning that only the wealthy can live there no doubt.

From school? I very much doubt it. At home yes I agree. However my child is the one whose needs were ignored throughout their primary education.

So discounting NI because of its culture?
Faith schools?
Exam boards?
Total different primary school system?

I have lived in England, Wales and NI.
The primary schools have not been totally different. Parents and teachers all focused on literacy and numeracy due to the "transfer test" or 11 +
Otherwise they are similar, uniforms, start and finish times, breaktimes, lunches, school plays, painting, music lessons, PE lessons etc

There is definitely more Christianity and faith based schools, split protestant/catholic. Are you saying this is improving the results?

What cultural differences? Sports? Wheaten bread? Families seem more supportive, closer knit communities, but I live in an area with massive eastern european population.

There seem to be less private schools so this could be overall increasing the state results?

What do you think the difference is then if it isnt selection?

Thank you Sixis for that very informing and truthful testimony!

Some posters have a 'romanticised' idea of education and poverty, that i think comes from a 'book' or University lecture in many cases.

A belief based that everybody is the same and that children are the same whatever their class background if given the same opportunities as each other .
You know as well as i that is claptrap !

You clearly understand and know that possibly the 'majority' if not the majority a large 'minority' are not in the slight bit interested in improving themselves though education, Indeed a lot of them 'like' their lives ! Certainly nothing an extra £150 PW could not solve anyway.

Most of them despite the posters on here 'ideas' , have lives nothing like Daniel Blake and therefore wish for no change !