Please can someone answer this simple question about state selective schools?

[Hakluyt]

If selection at 11 is such a good idea, why do wholly selective authorities not produce significantly better exam results than demographically similar wholly comprehensive authorities?

Well, you're obviously begging the question as to whether it is a good idea, at all.

Perhaps you could answer this question. Are outcomes worse in wholly selective authorities (overall)?

Also, are there any truly wholly comprehensive authorities, or do, in fact, most "comprehensive" schools actually set for many subjects?

As far as I can see, there is very little difference.

And comprehensive schools can and do set. "Comprehensive" refers to admissions only.

Comparison between selective and non-selective education is complex. Pupils do move across LA boundaries so around 20% of grammar school pupils come from outside the LA. For some LAs this is as high as 75%. And there is evidence that grammar school pupils generally take harder qualifications than more able pupils in non-selective schools, so a straight comparison of grades is potentially misleading.

There have been a lot of studies adopting varying methodologies. In broad terms most of them show a small positive effect on GCSE grades for pupils attending grammar schools, with results up to a full grade higher than pupils of similar ability at non-selective schools.

The effect on pupils failing to reach grammar school is more problematic. Some studies report a small negative effect, others suggest no effect. I haven't seen a study that suggests a positive effect.

Some supporters of selection at 11 suggest it improves social mobility. There is little evidence to support this in the studies I have seen.

From what I have read, the average improvement in grades is significantly less than one. Which hardly seems a ringing endorsement of the system.......

I did want my son to go to the grammar school, yes. There is no comprehensive school within striking distance of where we live. So it was grammar school or high school. No other option.

And I have always been vocally opposed to selective education. I have never changed my mind on the subject.

What you get at selective schools is a type of indirect social selection. This produces a peer group which is very different from its non-selective equivalent, both in terms of its behaviour and its academic/life expectations. As a parent with a girl at a selective, this is very important to me, especially after I worked in non-selectives and saw the reality on the ground for myself.

The anecdotal examples are startling. My daughter was not the brightest at her local state primary, but ended up at a selective whilst almost all her primary schools mates are at comps. Four years on, there is no comparison between what she is attempting and what they are, both academically and culturally; what the others get up to and how they behave generally are also very different.

This borough, Barnet, has three selective schools, with a total capacity of around 370 kids per year. All three schools accept pupils from other boroughs, including some who move from other parts of the country. Even setting aside the notorious reputation of education ‘achievement’ statistics, I wouldn’t expect much of an impact at a borough level.

But ask any family around here and they would love their kids to attend a selective.

I understand all that. What I don't understand is why aren't the results significantly better than in a non selective authority?

jBX- now there's honesty!

the average improvement in grades is significantly less than one

I did say up to one grade. It depends on which study you read - some find a bigger effect than others. A few find an improvement greater than one grade but most research seems to suggest an improvement of around 0.75 of a grade. A few studies find no improvement at all.

LaQueen- I wanted my son to go to a school with lots of music and drama. In my town that school is the grammar school. As you well know, I have another child who did go to the grammar school- and I was just as vociferous on here and locally before they went and while they were there.

Anyway- back to the topic. The point JBX so eloquently makes is that for them it is about social exclusion rather than social inclusion. The oft made point that grammar school are an engine of social change is called into question......

It's hardly surprising that someone living in a grammar school area wants their kid to go to the grammar school. I don't want anyone's child to be written off at 11, but least of all my own.

And since we are bringing up MN history, I must admit to major LOLs at the thought LaQueen offspring would go to a sink secondary modern rather than private.

I feel glad in some ways that there are no selective schools here as then I would be in a dilemma about what I would want to happen in terms of my DCs education.

I wonder how much parental input has to do with how children achieve - LaQueen do you really feel that if you had lived in an area with non-selective schools that your DDs would have so drastically altered? Education has always been valued in my family - I went to a comprehensive school where the full range of ability and parental interest was there but this didn't mean that my expectations were lowered.

It's quite interesting looking at the smiling gorgeous blonde girls GCSE success stories here in Kent. A number of the high schools (secondary moderns by any other name) produce a considerable number of candidates with loads of A/As - and not all the grammar schools have 100% of students with five A-Cs (although every grammar has a number of students with straight A/As). I think the moral of this story is that children can do very well even if they fail a test taken on one day at one point in their lives.

It's selective education I have an issue with, not specifically grammar schools. I don,t like high schools either. I don't want my children either at a school consisting only of the "top" 23% or of the bottom 77%. Both are equally wrong.

Sorry, forgot the "" round "bottom"

The problem with this is the vertical concept of 'top' selection and 'bottom'.

If there is to be selection, there should be selection for technical schools as well. In fact there is, for schools like the 'Brit' school. Just because someone gets into a Grammar doesn't mean they are 'lower' than someone who gets into a Drama or a music school. There should be schools for children with all skills and the comprehensive school should remain for those who just don't know yet and can sometimes become very successful in life precisely because they have kept their options open.

But please let's have more schools where young people can excel in skills other than academic ones.

I like grammars for most of the reasons laqueen states. Less trouble, nicer children, supportive parents. You get nice children with supportive parents at comprehensives too but you also get the horrors. And if you have an easily led child that could lead to bad outcomes for them