Is this a reasonable question to ask a Secondary school, and should they be able to give me an answer reasonably quickly?

[seeker]

We like in an all selective area, and 23% of children go to grammar schools.

Would it be reasonable for me to ask the High School what % of their cohort are likely to start year 7 with level 5 SATS?

pretty reasonable

I am guessing, Seeker, that you are ideologically and philosophically opposed to private education because you believe that education should be universal? Perhaps you don't think that selection on the basis of parental wealth is fair?

How do you reconcile this with applying to a grammar school? Does it not follow that selection on the basis of intelligence, and thereby providing a better quality of education than that provided to the lumpen proletariat is equally unfair?

I sense a double standard in operation here. Mind you, after what I have learned about comprehensive schools tonight, I would share your reservations. D'you know that when studying Shakespeare, they only actually read a couple of scenes? It's all too difficult for them apparently. So they watch the DVD of the play and just a couple of scenes.

I am opposed to selective education in any form - but particularly selection by parental wealth or social class. I live in an area where there are no comprehensive schools. If there was a comprehensive school my children would be at it. As there aren't, the only way for my dd to be in the "top set", which is where academically she belongs, is for her to be at a grammar school. Which is where she is. Ditto my son. But he didn't make the cut so he'll go to the high school.

Double standard? Well, if there was a comprehensive school available and I sent my children to the grammar school instead then yes. But there isn't.

'I don't consider the grammar system inherently unfair provided the alternative is as good, but different'. Has that ever been the case in the UK though Yellowtip? Genuine question, not having a go.

Oh come come, Seeker. You didn't leave them to go to the top set in the comprehensive. You were sending them to grammar school. Which has more money, more bright children, more middle-class children. You are equivocating to justify your own position!

I have no such scruples therefore I do not have to tie myself in knots to justify trying to get a decent education for the DCs.

But Seeker, why do you think your DCs should be in the "top set"?

Presumably so they will get a better education than the ones on the other sets. Is that fair?

Playing devils advocate a bit, because I would claim to be the same as Seeker, against selective education. We have "almost comprehensives " around here; I would guess about 1/2 of the top 25% (not actually the top 1/2) go private or to far-away grammers. Anyway, DS is going to the "comp", but I have to admit I will be very annoyed if he isn't in top sets for almost everything.

Because I believe that the ones who start in the top sets will get better chances than the middle sets, regardless of their innate ability. And I want my boy to get the best, whether he deserves it or not

Prove me wrong, someone. Please.

Oh god, I get so bored with explaining! In a wholly selective area there are no comprehensive schools.

Telling seeker she should have not let dd take the 11+ reminds me of when people (only on mn) tell me I should have bought a house in catchment for the least successful school and then sent my children there is I'm such an advocate of state education.

I do see there is an impassioned case to be made for being the trail blazer who doesn't put her children in for the 11+. It would be a difficult decision for me, I know. But the again, you have to go with what the state offers where you live.

My ds should be in the top set because by objective measure of her academic ability that's where she should be,

In a grammar school area the top set in the comprehensive secondary modern is not going to be as academic as the bottom set in the grammar... or is it? There must be a lot of DCs around the pass-mark who could fall on wither side of it. But will the opportunities be there to take the academic subjects? Triple science, Latin etc. may not fit in the timetable where they are also fitting in all the vocational subjects.

"Presumably so they will get a better education than the ones on the other sets. Is that fair?"

Not a better education, but one pitched to their abilities. For example, in my dd's school there are 7 Maths sets. they a all expected to get at least a B, most will get at least an A. They are all being taught towards the same goal, but differently.

But should (s)he get a Better education by being in the top sets? How is that different to getting a better education by going to grammar school?

Setting is a minefield. I've read arguments that not setting can be better for everyone, and I must say that I do think in some ways setting is lovely for top set and the teacher who teaches them....not so much for anyone else.

Yet I still want mine t be in top set. But had to cope with it when dd was in set two for humanities last year. ..

I don't understand.

A grammar school system means that if, for whatev reason you don't perform on one day when you are 10 you are barred from the "top set" for your entire school career. A comprehensive school means that if you suddenly have a brain spurt, or start working rally hard you can move into it at any time.

And it's not a better education- it's a different one.

Yes: moving between sets can be an arse but I imagine easier than moving in or out of a grammar.

Seeker I do hope your ds settles down quickly and that you're pleasantly surprised by it all not being so bad and that all goes ok: this must be am absolute nightmare.

I don't think it is that easy to move sets in reality. Most children end up working to the schools expectations.

And surely grammar schools do give a better education for the academic children. Probably at the expense of the less academic children, but grammar enthusiasts would argue not, because they get something more suited to their abilities and aptitudes.

The big worry for you and your DS is how much it is at the expense of the ones who just miss out on a grammar place, or the ones who have a spurt later on, and I think you are right to worry.

But you are right Seeker, at a "proper" comprehensive, the top streams are there to be aimed for, and the harder subjects are available.

Whereas at a Secondary modern, the top sets, are going to be more like the bottom sets of the grammar.

I might be repeating myself here, but when I say the Grammars give a better education (for the academically able), I mean compared to the Secondary Moderns, not compared to a true comprehensive.

OK, so are we saying that the quality of teaching is lower in the Secondary Modern Schools? I think not.

Are we saying that the curriculum on offer is insufficient? It's still NC isn't it.

Higher number of disaffected students/parents? Why would there be?

Lower expectations of pupils? Again, why would there be?

Seeker, what difference do you believe it will make to the quality of your DS's education if there are 25% less 'bright' children in his year group?

It makes a big difference to the speed and depth of a subject covered. Plus the competitive instinct is sparked up.

Not if DC are appropriately setted though.
I can't believe you need everyon ein he entire school to be an intellectual peer!

However, you do need a critical mass of each ability range. Which I guess is what Seeker's orignal point was; will there be a critical mass of DC at level 5 or above.

Indeed.

And I say this as somehting of a convert.
I wanted DD to go to a superselctive day school but she had her heart set on a mixed ability school. I agreed with reservation.

But it's been great! There is a critical mass of girls at her academic level to offer a challenging top set (triple science, latin, double MFL, students expected to get A* etc). But the wider mix makes for a more creative/artsitic envronment. I must admit to being very very pleased.

Speed is fairly fixed in terms of what you are expected to cover by when. Depth can be obtained by good differentiation and guidance for personal study.

Competitive instinct? Compete with yourself, try to beat your own personal best.

[I believe that success at school, in the broadest sense, is about a good match between child and school ethos btw.]