Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

A thread to discuss state selective education.

362 replies

Hakluyt · 11/01/2015 15:07

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.

OP posts:
elfonshelf · 14/01/2015 16:42

smokepole - it was CE in the 1980's/90's when I and my siblings were all there.

It looks like it is now a 13+ exam set by the school with papers only in English/Maths/VR/NVR.

CE seems to be very different from when I was doing it as well. Things like pre-tests didn't exist for places like Eton. You all sat the exams together, papers were then sent to the individual school and you waited to hear if you had a place or not. Was all a lot less complicated than it is now!

TalkinPeace · 14/01/2015 16:53

smokepole
what personal close family experience of comprehensive schools do you have?
You live in East Kent, your brother lives in Trafford.
You are delighted that neither has comps
yet dismiss those of us who are delighted to have comps

minifingers · 14/01/2015 16:57

CP is nowhere near as selective at it was three years ago, when it used to take over 70% high ability children.

It changed it's selection procedures after complaints that it was fiddling the system.

TalkinPeace · 14/01/2015 17:07

Oh yes, looked after children getting into Grammar schools.

There is an easy test.
Margate.
There are loads of childrens' homes in Margate containing dozens of children dumped there by other LEAS
here is the grammar school for that area
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=136382&superview=sec&qtype=LA
It has 11 FSM pupils.
Chances are nobody from the homes made sure their kids sat the 11+

BorisBus · 14/01/2015 18:58

My parents epitomise both sides of the polarised grammar debate. They were teenage sweethearts. They grew up in the 40s and 50s in working class households in adjacent streets of terraced houses in a big city, and met at primary school. My dad passed the 11+, continued to Cambridge and has had a prestigious career. My mum failed the 11+ whilst her 3 siblings all passed. She went to a technical school and became a secretary. My siblings and I all passed the 11+ and went to grammar schools and top universities too.

My mum has been dogged all her life with a sense of inferiority and lack of confidence. She constantly refers to herself in a self-deprecating fashion. She sees herself as the thick one in a bright family. Her lack of confidence was at its worst in my teenage years when she became quite seriously depressed. She is fine now and my parents are now very lucky and happy pensioners in excellent health with enough money to do whatever they want.

I admit to being torn on the whole debate but I'm really relieved I live in a non-11+ area. I live in an average town now and the comps are not startling but seem to serve all abilities very well. My DC are doing very well.

I'm too tired tonight to make any profound statements but would be interested in what you all make of my tale.

Original poster
Hakluyt · 14/01/2015 19:03

Your mother is not alone, borisbus- the 11+ is hideously divisive and damaging both socially and psychologically. Interestingly the only people who say it isn't are those who either passed, never took it or think their children will pass.........

OP posts:
Clavinova · 14/01/2015 19:48

Quite a few girls from my 1980s grammar became secretaries though - they left the sixth form with 2 A levels and a business studies/typing qualification - it must have been more common in the 1940s and 50s. Did your mum have any sisters who passed the 11 plus BorisBus? You don't say that her three siblings went to university.

BorisBus · 14/01/2015 20:15

Yes, my mum's two sisters and her brother all passed the 11+, went to university and have all had successful careers. Of the sisters one got a PhD and is a semi-retired academic who lectured all over the world and wrote textbooks. The other is retired and was a civil servant. They all are happily married with large families. So it wasn't even as if they sacrificed family life. My mum feels she's never succeeded at anything. By the way, my dad is the sweetest, most gentle and loving man you could meet. He completely loves and worships her, values her and has never belittled her.

Essexmum69 · 14/01/2015 21:15

The problem from my point of view is that the comprehensive schools in my area are all poor. If I lived somewhere with good comprehensive schools that provided a good education for all their pupils I would happily use them, but I don't. The towns options are two SS grammar schools, two small Independents, 1 excellent catholic "comprehensive", a "comprehensive" that is actually a semi-selective and in an area of extremely expensive housing and 5 comprehensive schools that cater for the middle ability only, are not very good at that and dont even have sixth forms.
Consequently my older academically able are at the grammar school and my youngest who is not at all suitable for a grammar education will probably be home educated once he reaches age 11 unless we can move or win the lottery before then. I am not going to send him to a school whose only options for the "less able" are btecs in health and social care or PE! Fine for some but useless for a boy whose future is likely to involve the inside of a car bonnet.
Combination vocational and academic education can be done very well, (as in Holland) unfortunately it is not where I live. The main problem with the selection debate is it always seems to concentrate on why the top children should not be separated out, but doesn't address the fact that many comprehensive schools are failing the lower end of the academic scale.
But I guess most MN mums dont admit to being in that position!Grin

TalkinPeace · 14/01/2015 21:18

Essexmum
You have no comprehensives in your area.
You have selective schools.
Therefore the others are not comprehensive.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 14/01/2015 21:26

I was going to say that: essex you say that the problem you have with comprehensives is that the ones near you are bad, but actually the problem you have is that you don't have any near you!

smokepole · 14/01/2015 21:31

Talkinpeace. My brother lives in Cheshire East a fully Comprehensive area next to Trafford (though his DD is at boarding school and DS is at a independent day school). I am not dismissing people who like non selective education ( I wished there was a Comprehensive available when DD1 failed. I wanted a system where there was a high achieving school as a back up, allowing for a free shot at grammar. However , I know families from Brothers local Comprehensive who have been seriously let down by it.

24HoursInMyMessyHouse · 14/01/2015 21:43

How's that supposed to work then smokepole? How can you expect grammars alongside high-achieving 'back-ups' if all the high achievers are likely to be at the grammars? Confused

TalkinPeace · 14/01/2015 21:46

smokepole
Cheshire East a fully Comprehensive area next to Trafford

I wanted a system where there was a high achieving school as a back up, allowing for a free shot at grammar

You need to get out more

24HoursInMyMessyHouse · 14/01/2015 21:47

Also, I'd say if comprehensives are failing children it's because they are bad schools, not because they're comprehensives per se.

smokepole · 14/01/2015 21:51

EssexMum I know the town you are talking about, my sister lives there "Niece 1" and Nephew 1 went/go to the grammar schools Niece 1 came out three years ago with 2 A and 1A (currently in Paris as an internee 3rd year French/Business, Nephew has a chance of Oxford English provided he gets 3A and 1A . Both of the schools are very good, though the average A level score (B) of the girls is a bit ordinary consider the requirements for sixth form entry.

smokepole · 14/01/2015 21:58

Cheshire East. (previously Cheshire or Macclesfield BC has been a fully Comprehensive area since 1973). The local school I talk about is now getting fewer pupils 5 GCSE A*-C then it did in 1997 ( Thanks Performance stats ) . That clearly is rubbish !.

I will give the school a bit of slack though, because it also suffers from losing a large number of potential pupils to private schools as well as grammar schools in Trafford.

smokepole · 14/01/2015 22:01

Hakulyt knows the answer to 24 hours question. Begins with 3% low ability or 4.4% FSM !....

amothersplaceisinthewrong · 14/01/2015 22:05

My kids went to state comps where setting took place. They were both bright so were in the top set for most but not all subjects. Both got good GSCES and A levels and degrees from RG universiteis (though I suspect by Mumsnet standards they might actually be failures as they did not get all A*s by any means!). Both successfully employed now and realising that attitude, personality and people skills are just as important....

Essexmum69 · 14/01/2015 22:14

You may not consider them comprehensives but the government /LEA do.

Blu · 15/01/2015 01:21

Clavinova: you do not know what school my child goes to. And if you do (somehow) I would prefer that you don't make it apparent.

My point was that my child is in a school with a comprehensive range of ability, and high FSM ratios, and it is serving my child well. That is in the context about the need for grammar schools or not.

I agree that any form of hurdle is selection,

But as I said in one of my last posts, the schools which operate banding tests also share catchments with other (popular, good) schools which do not. So the 2 closest alternative schools to the 2 banded ones that parents who just filled in the gaps would get their kids into are schools that get good results and are popular. Why would local parents who can't deal with the banding tests send them further away? And Charter has no banding, but has lower FSM than both Dunraven and KD.

smokepole · 15/01/2015 09:21

Essex. Just realised you live in the other "Similar town" educationally in Essex....

littledorrit6 · 15/01/2015 13:02

Surely if an area has super-selective grammar schools - especially if they aren't catchment based - then the comprehensives should be fully comprehensive as only a tiny percentage of the high achievers will be taken out of the system?

Tiffin has over 2,000 kids sit for about 125 places (I think) - that means that there are still going to be well over 1,000 very bright children going to local comprehensives (I say 1,000 as out of the 2k, there are no doubt those who will go to indies or to other grammars).

Original poster
Hakluyt · 15/01/2015 13:18

Yep- with a super selective the remaining school Is very nearly a comprehensive. And the social and psychological effects of the "normal" grammar system are not such an issue either. I remain to be convinced, although many on here assure me that it is, that a super spelective is the best place for the kids that go to it. But that's for another thread..........

OP posts:
smokepole · 15/01/2015 14:19

Hakulyt. Australia has a " Super Super Selective" system called Selective High schools (how clever!). However , for instance New South Wales has about 10-12 The whole of Sydney has 6 Selective high schools Melbourne I think 3 or so. A super selective system works in Australia, then again the state also gives an allowance to families "offsetting" fees should they choose private education. A similar system in the Uk like that would be highly Controversial for obvious reasons.