http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/13/grammar-pupils-progressing-faster-than-their-peers-in-non-select/

[sandyholme]

I am pleased that finally there is a piece of evidence highlighting that grammar schools do improve performance for middle ability pupils.

All the evidence given on these threads has been to continually state the case for Comprehensive education.

Of course children in Grammar schools progress more quickly. Many have been coached into submission and woe betide them if the then fail.

The schools get heavily coached kids used to putting in hours of study. Of course they progress more rapidly.

The article proves nothing.

sandyholme This is exactly why parents that want the option of grammar schools , should have that option available to them.

But those parents who want comps. or don't want sec. mods should not be given the option?

Even with your proposed 40% selection, that still means that 60% won't be given an option.

I agree with Sandy get rid of the 11+ then every parent who wants that choice for their child can have it. If its all about choice then clearly its wrong for any school to deny that through the use of an entrance exam. Sorted.

Choice,for parents who want the option of grammar schools,is at the expense those who don't,and those whose children are not academically able enough to pass the selection exam.
And at least some parents who would like grammar schools for their children get a nasty shock when they realise actually their DCs will not pass the selection exam...

Ta1kinpeace, sorry I need to adjust my irony/ sarcasm filters or state where I am coming from!
I live in Kent,and have experienced selection for myself ( direct grant - ie grammar equivalent) and DH and DCs - non selective a.
I am opposed to selection,I am opposed to the creation of more grammar schools,and it has always seemed to me that if selection worked so well results overall would be better in Kent,which they aren't...

Is this just the 'value added' pupil/school measurement tool rejigged?

For the avoidance of doubt this is what Bucks county Council (with an honesty wholly untypical of Bucks CC) has to say on the matter:

There are 2 types of secondary school in Buckinghamshire – upper/all-ability schools and grammar schools. The Transfer Test decides which type of school will best meet your child’s needs

No mention of parental choice there!

They are saying there is a choice ! A school that caters for everyone , but also another option is available to children who meet certain criteria.

I really can't see whats wrong with having selective education , apart from perhaps the 40% should have the option of a selective education. 40% i guess this is (B-) students upwards thus the level who would benefit from a highly disciplined , academic environment.

Anyway scoring '121' (Bucks) does not require a child to be a 'genius'. , However there are issues with bright children with Dyslexia/Dyspraxia ETC not passing the 11+ hence the reason for 15% of pupils to be selected not on the basis of their 11+ score.

That is how to make a 40% system . The 15% of selective admissions that don't come directly from the exam , could also be able target bright 'disadvantaged' children .

B- Average at GCSE level so say : 1 A 3 Bs 5Cs type profile and above !

sandyholme Mon 17-Oct-16 14:34:36 I really can't see whats wrong with having selective education

Really, so you were not deemed Grammar material at the age of 10/11 yet you went on to teach the very children you were classed as not suitable to be educated along side. You were considered to be in the bottom 10% academic ability yet went on to be a Grammar school teacher (I may have miss understood what you have previously posted, in which case please feel free to correct me). Yet you fully support such a system?

That is how to make a 40% system

And the financing and 40% support for the system in order to make it happen?

I really can't see whats wrong with having selective education , apart from perhaps the 40% should have the option of a selective education.

So you can't see it is wrong to not give any option to the remaining 60% (possilby more depending on how many people would acutally support such a system).

hence the reason for 15% of pupils to be selected not on the basis of their 11+ score.

So the DCs who have a parent willing to pay for an assessment are prioritsed over those who don't and are not identified as having SEN until actually in secondary school?

'121' (Bucks) does not require a child to be a 'genius'.

No 11 plus exam requires a DC to be a genius, the test is not designed to identify genius.

Thanks for promoting me to a 'grammar school teacher' never been a teacher (the school teacher references i have made are about my mum who was head of English at one).

The other info stated being that 15 out of 16 family members all went to grammar schools and University !

My mum pulled me out of the school i went to in 4th year and home educated me (after my school indicated i would not be capable of doing any of the newly introduced GCSEs). I basically had 3 D grade GCSE qualifications until i achieved a 2.2 in Social Science last year with the O.U !

sandyholme OK that makes more sense. I had mis read what you had posted.

So how would it have played out differently for you if there were more Grammar schools? Are you saying your would have gained a place in one or that you would have performed better if you had attended a sec.mod.?

sandyholme, Not convinced even if you are selecting the top 40% that you'll be selecting for B average at GCSE - and also not sure that those children would benefit from a highly disciplined academic environment.
That results profile covers both my DC who have been in the top of the middle of their non selective Kent school.They have both benefited from a school that encouraged them to achieve their best,and which put quite a lot of focussed teaching into helping children who needed it raise their game.

Whoops, posted too soon. I think they would have sunk in a highly disciplined academic environment ,because those results aren't what they were on course to achieve initially.
Why not just educate all children together,and stream them to allow them to work at a level that reflects their ability in each subject.
Actually 40% might have just got them- but then they'd have been in the unenviable position of being in the lowest ability group,,,

Mum. Any help or knowledge about SEN's might have made a difference !

The secondary modern was the one that wrote me off as 'ESN' a term that was widely used 30 plus years ago.. Their definition of me was just based on the fact that i would never say anything in class and my writing was totally ilegible. This meant as a consequence i became very unhappy and then display typical Autistic symptoms (sudden outbursts of crying and temper tantrums through frustration) This is why my mum was more proud of my achievements gaining an 'ordinary' degree A 2.2 from the O.U then my sister's PHD and subsequent role as HOD at a Wiltshire Comprehensive.
Therefore extra grammar schools would have made no difference to me 30 years ago. However, today with the understanding of SEN i might have made it to one i certainly would have done better than 3 GCSE D grades only achieved though teacher colleagues giving up their time.

Two thing my experiences of education gave me firstly a 'fear' of education due to the damage it inflicted on me as child . Secondly because all my family have been academic high fliers , I believed whatever i achieved would be 'worthless' compared to my sister and brother's achievements.

Since retiring 6 years ago mum has been volunteering twice a week mentoring pupils in year 8 and 9 struggling with English literacy.

However, she is despite her philanthropy towards , pupils in the lowest ability bands a huge supporter of selective education !.

Mums teacher colleagues given up their time..

sandyholme Mon 17-Oct-16 18:52:49 This is why my mum was more proud of my achievements

I can fully understand why.

today with the understanding of SEN i might have made it to one

If you didn't make it into one 30 years ago with your mum, a teacher, tutoring you, why do you think you would have more chance of getting into one now? Is there any evidence to suggest that the number of DCs with SEN attending Grammars today is comparatively higher than 30 years ago.

I would imagine you would have had more chance of gaining a place 30 years ago when tutoring was not the norm. (assuming it wasn’t back then).

Thanks Mum, i think i need to stick to only posting on education matters !

It seems that you are not able to 'express' disgust about despicable crimes being committed by children.

I haven't read the whole thread but a few facts (all on average of course!):

Regardless of school type, a cohort with higher prior attainment will progress more than a cohort with lower prior attainment. Well, at least the data shows that (whether the measures are showing the actual picture is another debate).

Pupils with a low prior attainment will progress more in a cohort of a higher prior attainment.

Pupils with a high prior attainment will progress less in a cohort of a lower prior attainment.

The increase in progress, of a pupil, is directly related to the prior attainment of the cohort (the higher the cohort, the more progress made, on average of course).

Selective schools have a cohort of generally higher prior attainment so therefore progress their pupils more.

The same rationale could be applied to 'setting'. A mixed set should progress the lower prior attainment pupils more than them being in a bottom set full of lower prior attainment pupils. A mixed set, conversely, wouldn't progress the high prior attainment pupils as much.

stubiff, explained it in a nutshell. And isn't that why a lot of families in England want selection, because our culture is to push the brightest to the top. We just don't like this idea of making everyone 'bog standard', (to borrow a phrase).

Assuming your facts are correct stubiff, then it is a zero sum game between the high attainers and the low attainers. I wonder where the middle attainers fall.

Pupils with a low prior attainment will progress more in a cohort of a higher prior attainment.

And the difference in attainment is?

Pupils with a high prior attainment will progress less in a cohort of a lower prior attainment.

And the difference in attainment is?

Empress,

It is not zero sum between the low and high attainers as the whole cohort is taken into account.
i.e. any prior attainer can progress, or not, by any amount. The school’s value is an average of that.

A middle prior attainer could progress by +1.0 in any school, just more likely to do it, on average, in a school with a higher prior attainment cohort.

Value-Add (avg 1000) and Progress8 (avg 0.0) are a tricky measure as the ‘standard’ is the average, i.e. roughly half of the schools will have a ‘negative’ number, which makes them look worse than they may be. It just means that they are ‘below the average’ for similar schools.

The Gov ‘floor’ is -0.5 which denotes a school needs to improve.

It’s like setting a pass mark at 50%, some may say that’s quite high.

Mum,

Gov's defintion:

'Prior attainment' is the attainment level of a pupil just before they started secondary (in other words; the end of primary or end of year 6). This data indicates how well a school supports all of its pupils to meet their potential. Middle attainers were pupils who achieved level 4. High attainers did better than level 4, while low attainers were below level 4. Pupils without key stage 2 results have been excluded.'

Obviously this will change to something else, once Levels disappear from the data.

Jessia0,

it's not necessarily making everyone bog standard, it's trying to make everyone a 'certain' standard. This is invariably trying to raise the standard of lower performers. It may come at the expense of already higher performers.