11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

Word - exactly. That is exactly the problem. :(

word, although I broadly agree with you, I think this thread has made me see, that even taking 10% off,it does at least have a marginal difference to the ones that are left.
I think it was the posts of last tuesday, and the first posts of last wednesday that somewhat opened my eyes.

Russians - well yes, I know one person with a child at my dds' school who feels it is elitist to have a top set doing different work etc. I don't agree, but I see the issue.

No, on balance, I don't think it sends the same message to have the top set doing extension work - that probably is something which doesn't matter to most people: certainly it matters less to them than that top 10% being sequestered elsewhere doing nothing the same.

Where the top 10% are in a comprehensive, spread throughout the top sets and the form groups and the hockey teams and school trips, it is normal and ok to know, see and understand someone who might be a lot brighter, or a lot less bright, than oneself. They seem less like a different breed, when they're just a part of life and so are you.

nit just because you don't fancy it for your kids, you decide no one gets the choice? Really?

And of course the DC in the 90% school are expected to do well! Why wouldn't they be?

DD's school still has high expectations! Why wouldn't a state school have the same expectations?

Disagreeing with me is fine. Saying that this -"The desire to have a system which explicitly does not cater for them and is designed to not cater for them, as espoused by some in this thread, is deeply horrible" represents my views is not fine. It is inaccurate and rude.

I'm not 'deciding' anything, obviously. I'm saying I don't think it's a good idea. I think your parallels between a choice you made not to opt for strongly academic school within the private sector, and the way in which this system would run in the state sector, are unrealistic and a bit obtuse.

I think it is quite easy, if you yourself went to say a Grammar or private or whatever, and you are surrounded by other parents, friends, some relatives ths same, that it is quite easy to think well everything is fine.
When, in reality,those people are not really exposed to the deep down or deep rooted feelings of others whose children are not at those schools.
And the ones that do speak up,in real life, can do so in a rather shouty way, which can then be somewhat ignored beacuse of the perhaps shouts and rants.
When actually, they do have valid points.

Are this 10% that are being helicoptered out in this hypothetical situation going to be the best at everything? What about sport and art and music? Drama?

No of course they're not seeker.

Which is why educating them selshwere won't have an effect on sports, music and drama.

Nit - but in my direct experience this is one of the things can can trigger bullying. Mind you horrific bullying can happen anywhere, including grammar schools. :(

But won't it have an effect on their sport, music and drama?

Not - was that a Shawshank reference? I do so very hope so.

Nit! Not not! And I can't even blame the ipad for that, it was a proper my fault typo. :(

I suspect the spread of ability within their cohort would be mixed, so probably not.

I suppose what I keep coming back to is why this top 10% need to be educated in a separate school, not just a separate class. If you were talking about the top 2%, then I can see the point. I don't agree with the point because I don't think it's socially a good idea, but I can see it. But why can't the top 10% be catered for in sets for the subjects they are top 10% in, and in other sets for the subjects where they aren't?

Oh, and my perennial question, which is always avoided- if the selective system is so fantastic, why don't wholly selective counties do hugely better than non selective ones?

Russians - how ironic: in our house we only ever pronounce it as 'obtoose' because of Shawshank, but actually in that post I just used it 'straight'.

And yes, bullying can happen anywhere and for a host of reasons, IME.

Complacency seeker, complacency.
I think, and I could be wrong, that the powers that be, at national level, local level or whatever, would think..
Actually, just see my points from 7am onwards this morning.

Will have a think about your second paragraph.

'why don't wholly selective counties do hugely better than non selective ones?'

How are you measuring do better Seeker? In terms of exam results Seeker? University destinations? Playing sport for the county? In National youth orchestras/choirs?

seeker

Because just sticking them in a top set clearly doesn't work. Too many underperform.

Because it's not nice being different. Much nicer to be normalised.

Because you need to use far less resources if you put these kids together. So it's more efficient.

Because you need a different style of teaching.

Because anyone who tries to be all things to all men is either a. arrogant or b. settling for just okay.

Seeker you question is NOT always avoided. It is in fact never avoided, every time you pose it, somebody answers you - the system in Kent is not fantastic and few if any people think it should be copied. Sutton, and Kingston, both LEAs which are basically comp with one or two super selectives both got much better results than Kent last year, using the very blunt 5 GCSEs at A*-C.. There are other superselective only areas which did the same (maybe all the superselective only areas did, but I don't know where all the superselectives are so I can't say). They also did better than Hampshire, also (Hampshire being famously fully selective).

"Too many underperform"

Do they? So why are public exam results for selective counties roughly parallel to selective counties?

"Because you need a different style of teaching."

Not sure I agree with this one.

Word - again, exactly. Satisficing.

Also, I don't know about you but I've never encountered a 'top set' that wasn't comprised of 27-30 pupils. Or a top table, at primary school, that doesn't have 5 or 6 kids (depending on the size of the tables in use). And the top kid? Has to work at the pace of the 5th or 6th kid. Even if that kid is working several sublevels below him or her.

Word- are you still talking 10%?

Because I honestly don't think the resources, teaching methods and even th difference thing applies at 10%. Possibly at 2%.......?

Yup.

The top set at comprehensives almost never performs on par with a super selective!

I don't know where seeker purports to get figures that show they do!