A thread to discuss state selective education.

[Hakluyt]

I am conscious that this debate is clogging up other threads in ways which are not helpful and must be annoying for those threads' authors. I tried to channel the debate to a separate thread yesterday, but got it badly wrong. I hope this will work better, and will be allowed to stay.

I had to read it a few times, i think I am being accused of worshipping the comprehensive system. She is not far off, I owe the comprehensive system an awful lot.

Yes Philoslothy. It is great that you have faith in a system that worked for you and your children. However , comprehensive education has failed many pupils in much the same way that Modern schools have done.
The point I am making is that we all want to ensure our children get the might appropriate education ,be that in a Grammar, Comprehensive or Modern (the sort with 3% low attainers) Joke !...

I am not sure that any education system has served my eldest well.

I have seen the comprehensive system work well for hundreds if not thousands of children. When it has failed children - like my son - it has not done so because it is a comprehensive system.

When the comprehensive system works it is often because it is a comprehensive system, However when the selective system works, it is often the selective nature of it that makes it harmful.

The point is that in wholly selective area, such as still exists in some LEAs, and which many ordinary people and some politicians hanker for, only a tiny minority of parents actively get the education they consider appropriate for their child, More or less by definition. With a comprehensive system, it is theoretically possible for everyone to- with the possible exception of a few outliers at either end of the bell curve. Please note theoretically. Obviously it doesn't always work. There are bad schools in all sectors.

But any system which starts by separating children into successes and failures at the age of 10 has to be wrong.

Philoslothy: I agree completely. "When the comprehensive system works it is often because it is a comprehensive system, However when the selective system works, it is often the selective nature of it that makes it harmful."

When my boys were young, I wished we were in a grammar school area. Now I'm delighted we aren't:

• They/we didn't have to go through the slog/pressure of 11+ preparation
• They've benefited enormously from contact with/understanding of children from bery different backgrounds and abilities to themselves
• They've mostly enjoyed school
• They've attained extremely highly and wouldn't have done better elsewhere, after all research shows the most important factors are parental education and parental support/engagement.

In my area of S London, we have fantastic primary schools and appalling secondaries (unless you are RC and even then...). I was a school governor at one and it was just depressing. Celebrating just over 40% getting 5 GCSEs isn't great.

I went through all our local ones results very carefully - you can have schools where the overall results are bad but there is still a small cohort that are getting a good haul of GCSEs and A levels at high grades. In these schools that is not the case, and they rarely send any children to university - let alone RC or Oxbridge.

It's one of the reasons that we are moving - we can't rely on the standards improving and there are no private schools or even semi-selectives in the area.

I went to grammar school myself - but took Common Entrance 13+. I've no idea what it's like now, but then it was a case of doing a minimum of 1 paper (and in some subjects 2 or 3 papers) in English, Maths, History, Geography, RE, MFL, Latin, Science etc as well as VR and NVR over the course of a week, and the final result was an average of the scores in all papers .This meant that kids who were mathematically minded could drop marks on humanities and vice-versa, plus it wasn't completely dependent on being on form for 1 single day.

In my mind, this is a much fairer way of selecting - and at 12, children are a bit more mature than they are at 10. The disadvantage of course is that state primaries seem to concentrate far more on English and Maths than on other subjects. I was at a prep school which had a very fixed curriculum and taught all subjects to the same level of importance whether that was English or Geography.

Common Entrance is for private schools.........

One thing I have always wondered is - if the non-grammar schools are given enough resources (possibly more than the grammars) and have similarly motivated and high quality teachers - doesn't that give children who are not in the top 25% the chance to shine that they wouldn't get in a truly comprehensive system. They could be top set maths rather than set 4. Surely that can only be good for a child's self-esteem?

Most of the issue seems to be parental feelings that being at these schools is being a 'failure', rather than seeing it as different. Other countries that split children into different streams - Italy for example which has the equivalent of grammar schools (Classico), secondary moderns with a science bent (Scientifico) and schools that are more like apprenticeships with basic but practical levels of English & Maths (Technico) don't seem to have the same predjudice. They feel that a child should go to the school to which they are most suited.

If the British could start to value skills and achievements that don't include becoming a lawyer or even getting to university then this country would be a better place.

In areas with super-selective grammars, there should be plenty of very bright children going to the non-grammar schools given the tiny percentage who actually get places, so those schools have no excuse for not achieving as well as good comprehensives in other areas. Perhaps it would be better if all grammar schools became super-selectives?

Hakluyt - and for some state grammars. I know as I was at one and nearly all the out-of-catchment pupils (over 100 each year) sat CE not the 11+. In catchment pupils sat the 11+ and then were in a separate Grammar stream at the local comprehensive until moving in Y9.

"Hakluyt - and for some state grammars. I know as I was at one and nearly all the out-of-catchment pupils (over 100 each year) sat CE not the 11+. In catchment pupils sat the 11+ and then were in a separate Grammar stream at the local comprehensive until moving in Y9."

Really? I've never heard of that happening- what a seriously odd system. Did the grammar school start in year 9 then, like an upper school? How on earth did the school deal in terms of staffing and funding and admissions with being a comprehensive to year 9 then a secondary modern from then on? Are you sure you're remembering correctly? And how did they deal with appeals if people were doing two completely different admissions exams?

Yes - it started in Y9.

I don't know how the comprehensive school did things as I wasn't there. No idea about appeals either.

The school was Cranbrook in Kent - it still has the same system now.

Elfonshelf. Not sure any grammar schools would sit the actual CE exam. In years 8 and upwards where ad hoc vacancies occur, their will be entrance exams based on papers set by the school. CE is a private paper for private schools. Not sure state grammars would use them.

Although I believe that now there is such competition for places that a huge number of in-catchment children are now from local prep-schools rather than the top 25% from the local comprehensive going as it was back in the 1980's.

Each year, there were at least 4 pupils from my prep and we all sat CE for the school. Papers were marked by the grammar - we got our marks in each subject so it wasn't a case that they just took English and Maths into account.

Boys had to score an average of 60% and girls 70% as there were fewer places for girls.

Pupils from out of catchment had to board, and the vast majority of boarders came from preps having done CE. The vast majority of day students came from the local comprehensive grammar stream having done the 11+.

Portico - the school doesn't start until Y9, so there were/are no ad-hoc places. The exams were the same papers as for every other school that uses CE (almost all private), they weren't separate papers set by the school.

On one of the previous posts on this thread, the poster mentions her daughter being furious that her mother didn't drag her along to this particular school at 13. A lot of parents in the area regard the school as a possible second-bite-at-the-cherry should their child fail the 11+ for other grammars.

In my mind, this is a much fairer way of selecting - and at 12, children are a bit more mature than they are at 10.

any system where a life changing decision is based on the actions of a 12 year old can't be great.

Looking at the current admissions form, it appears that the school no longer uses CE - back in the 1980's they most certainly did.

Ah, yes, sorry. I forgot about Cranbrook. I think its admissions have changed a bit since your day- they don't do the 11+ then go somewhere else temporarily- they all do the same exam at 12+, I think.

Blu. We live outside of London and my dc attend independent schools - one at a prep, the other at a selective independent senior school; ds1 tried for a super selective grammar (which we may have turned down anyway) but not a music scholarship at KD. He has attended a workshop at your school though but half of the dc attending were from prep schools as well. I remember the walk up from the station (and the total lack of coffee shops in the area), to the light and airy school with its long reception desk.

My point is that many of the most desirable London comprehensive schools have 'selective' intakes - how can your school be a 'fully inclusive' comprehensive when admission is decided after a banding test held on a Saturday with the submission of a supplementary form which parents have to ask their junior school head to sign? Obviously the school is selecting motivated, interested parents.The school set up the banding test because the ability range (in their own words) was 'skewed too much towards lower and middle ability children', ie not enough high ability children to make it a true comprehensive. There is some logic to their argument and I agree that the school has its fair share of fsm, Statements and EAL. However, it is now one of the better performing schools in the borough with well over twice as many high ability dc as low ability and there's something wrong if parents are buying Bond books to increase their dcs' chances of getting a higher banding mark and a better chance of a place at the school. Low ability dc and those with disinterested parents who live very local to the school are being allocated schools further away (possibly in a neighbouring borough) and probably some of the schools are ones you would not send your own child to.

"My point is that many of the most desirable London comprehensive schools have 'selective' intakes - how can your school be a 'fully inclusive' comprehensive when admission is decided after a banding test held on a Saturday with the submission of a supplementary form which parents have to ask their junior school head to sign?"

The banding tests for the most oversubscribed schools in SE London are done on all different days. KD (which my ds sat) was on a Wednesday. Harris Crystal Palace was over several week days.

In fact most schools I can think of within reach of where I live, set banding tests.

"However, it is now one of the better performing schools in the borough with well over twice as many high ability dc as low ability"

KD's intake is exactly what you'd expect for a non-selective school in the Southwark. There are one or two schools which have a few more low attainers and a few more high attainers than Kingsdale, but really there is nothing remarkable about KD's intake.

The school I'm referring to is not Kingsdale.

What is the South London school which offers music scholarships, allocates places by lottery, and starts with a K that you are referring to?

It's not Harris Crystal Palace either but now you mention it, Harris Crystal Palace 'comprehensive' has 9% low attainers and 46% high attainers. Banding places are allocated in relation to the ability profile of those children who apply and not the ability profile of children in general. If you encourage hundreds of motivated parents from further afield to enter their high ability children to sit the tests then a greater percentage of high ability children will be allocated places. Harris have 9 bands but no one knows the pass mark for each band - could be very skewed towards high ability. Over 2000 children sit the Harris banding test and they only end up with 9% low ability and 4 SEN children (SEN figure from 2012). Not to mention 10% of places allocated to dc with a technical aptitude and 10% of places to dc who live further than 2 miles (in London). No wonder they get good results - 20% better than their local authority average.

I thought it was the 13+ for yr9 entry in to Cranbrook, certainly it was when I wanted DD1 to take it. ? I did not now it was called a "Common Entrance Exam" I thought that was for Eton , Wycombe Abbey ETC.

There are no music places at the other school but there is a banding test and a supplementary form that has to be taken in to the child's junior school and signed by the head, together with a 'pledge' of sorts to uphold the ethos of the school, to be signed by the parent/s. Much easier to just fill in some blanks on the computer or post off the CAF for many parents.