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?

LaVolcan Cherwell like the sixth form in Cambridge is hardly a typical example of a comprehensive ( even MC ) for results. They both have many children from Oxbridge academics with the advantages of both support and inherited intelligence from them . Hampshire comprehensives would be more typical of what can be done with a high MC intake.

summerends
how much better than 3 x A* 8 x A and 2 x B (due for re-mark to A) is she supposed to have got?
Or her friend who got 9 x A* and 4 x A
or her best friend who got 1 x hat, 5 x A*, 6 x A and 1 x B
or her friend at a school down the road who got 13 x A*

What could a grammar have offered them that they did not get at the comp?
national orchestra competitions, DofE, national sports competitions we as well as the academic stuff

Summerends - I do know that - hence the comment about the North Oxford location, which was a bit tongue in cheek, but partly said to show that over time, the intake of a school can change.

But there are plenty of schools which are genuine comprehensives, besides ones in Hampshire, which get good results across the board and help each child achieve his or her potential.

You would never know this from the posts on MN. You would think that we still had 3000 or so Sec Mods and a few hundred grammar schools.

summerends
Oh yeah, did I mention that she also got Merit in Grade 7 Trinity music and grade 7 ISTD dance in the same exam month.

What exactly am I missing out on by not having access to a grammar school?

The 6th form college has Equestrian, Skiing and sailing teams BTW : and all without the 11+ or fees.

What could a grammar have offered them that they did not get at the comp?

Not having to rub shoulders with the great unwashed?
Even in Comprehensives the naice middle class children tend to be in the higher sets.

TalkinPeace What exactly am I missing out on by not having access to a grammar school? the expense of preparing for the 11 plus/CEM and the stress that goes with the process ;-)

Talkin there are as many bright MC children in Hampshire as elsewhere so I am comparing your DD's top stream with grammar schools taking top 10% intake. The better grammar schools will get a fair number of straight A* and DCs who have accomplished all that you have mentioned and more ( as many talented DCs do).
That does n't detract from your DD's accomplishments and her friends but 10- 13A would n't be unusual in the better grammar schools ( usually over half a dozen with many over 5A). So I suppose from your example I just wonder if the brightest in a very good MC comp are achieving less then maybe the education there is n't as academic for the top streams compared to the better grammar schools.

summerends
I just wonder if the brightest in a very good MC comp are achieving less

Please explain exactly what more you want them to achieve over and above

• strings of good GCSEs,
• high grade music and dance exams,
• county sports chamionships,
• National finals of Music Festivals
• overseas school trips (sport, academic and leisure)

what does this mythical better grammar school do?
Get them all the Hat in Further Maths?
Nobel prizes?

Oh yeah, and I'm quite happy that DD shared a campus with thick kids.

At least when they are her employees she'll understand what makes them tick a darned sight better than the segregated, arrogant buffoons from the better grammar schools and boarding schools who are "running" politics at the moment.

I know a fair number of young people emanating from both grammer schools and comprehensives, neither school type has the prerogative on 'arrogant buffoons' but I do find that comprehensive pupils who have been in the top sets of their school are actually sometimes more arrogant about their abilities. Anyway that's not the point of my query.
You are rightly proud of what your DDs and friends have achieved but possibly not objective and would seem not to have the experience of children coming from some of the really good grammar schools. I suppose that means you can't make a direct comparison of what equivalently intelligent multi talented children achieve in the best of both types of school. I would be the first to say that top grades are n't everything but I was just curious about what you thought

seem not to have the experience of children coming from some of the really good grammar schools
Could you name your top 5 ?

Just that DH goes to schools all over the country, including several Grammar schools every year.
He has never commented on Grammar School kids being any different from non segregated kids other than the extreme pressure they are put under because they can be shoved out at any time to the "less desirable" schools.

Thanks but no thanks.

"What exactly am I missing out on by not having access to a grammar school? "

Well, you do have to remember that there are As and As- they aren't all the same, you know...........

Cherwell's not really that leafy, you know. People talk about it as if it's somehow not somewhere that most comprehensives could hope to emulate. Yes it has a swathe of kids from academic families, but it's FSM numbers are only just below average.

Forgetting the London ones but a few (with a Southern bias) are the ones in Reading, Colchester, Colyton, Gloucestershire, some of the Birmingham ones, Sutton.

I think able children frequently put pressure on themselves not just academically but in their other achievements. Schools often see it as their job to try to counteract it.

Wow TP, that's bang out of order, stereotyping all students at the best grammars as 'segregated, arrogant buffoons'. It's woefully ignorant. Just because you chat to a husband who occasionally visits these schools can't possibly give you an insight. There's a very obvious argument that by segregating these kids and putting them amongst more or less academic equals, it knocks any arrogance out at an early stage, unlike being top dog in a comp. But of course so many clever kids aren't inherently arrogant anyhow, it's just a ludicrous thing to allege.

Molio
you reckon our current politicians are NOT "segregated, arrogant buffons" ?

and sorry but I just do not believe in segregation at all in state funded schools
DH goes to over 100 schools a year and he is also strongly of the opinion that mixed schools (even if the sets end up slightly socially segregated) are important to create the sort of rounded individuals so utterly lacking at the core of the establishment in England

TP that logic is ridiculous because inverted.

You don't visit these schools yourself; you have no direct experience since, on your own admission, you have no access to grammars.

It's ever so slightly weak to trot out what a husband thinks, with no direct experience, and express it as fact.

what is your experience of comps then?

because actually NONE of us is then entitled to post as we only know how our kids did at the school they actually went to as they did not attend any other.

There's a very obvious argument that by segregating these kids and putting them amongst more or less academic equals, it knocks any arrogance out at an early stage, unlike being top dog in a comp

Please could you link to evidence that supports your not in the least bit obvious opinion?

'Thick kids' isn't a very nice thing to say, really. And why assume they will be your DD's employees? Maybe they will be entrepreneurs and employ her. The music achievement isn't actually unusually good either, to be honest. The thing about grammar school kids is that with that level of achievement they definitely wouldn't be arrogant because they'd know people with 12 A*s and distinctions in grade 8 (at an earlier age). BUT that having said clearly your DD has achieved magnificently and I reckon any parent would be delighted with that level of achievement.

The thing about overseas trips is a complete red herring because only the people who can afford them go on them, whatever sort of school they are at (and. Luckily for me our GS doesn't offer huge numbers of those. It's hard enough saying no to the ones it does offer, I'm glad there aren't more to not go on).

Our current politicians did not, in the main, go to grammar schools. They went to Eton, Westminster etc. Or, haverstock hill comp.

Oh, and my experience of comps is that I went to one and my DS is at one. Although not a high achieving affluent one in a rich county but a middling one in a poor one.

Why do you need some form of spurious 'evidence' for something so obvious? As Rabbit says, if a kid gets 12A alongside several other kids in his year group who gets 12A, then he won't be that impressed by himself. Grammar schools are a good leveller for clever kids precisely because of that. Anyhow, I'd hazard a guess that very many clever kids are actually not super confident of their abilities, since they're clever enough to know that others are cleverer.

What has school got to do with high music grades? Or serious sporting achievements?

Y7 DD's music and sporty stuff are hers. Not schools. Not ours.

I might as well add that since I'm not sounding off about comps, it doesn't really matter that I have no direct experience of comps. I stick to what I know, and don't stray that far beyond.

It is true that the 'thick kids' will include some that will be starting up the companies that the more academic children will be seeking employment in when they leave university. There will be a fair few more who will have skills that outweigh academic ability in future life. So academic grades definitely are n't everything.

However that aside I am still curious why the top 10% in your excellent comprehensive Talkin (or from what you say others nearby) don't seem to have achieved the same proportion of A* GCSEs this year as equivalently bright children in the excellent grammar schools. Is it work ethic or a different type of teaching? It is an interesting question for those trying to differentiate ability from educational background in university admissions.

"However that aside I am still curious why the top 10% in your excellent comprehensive Talkin (or from what you say others nearby) don't seem to have achieved the same proportion of A* GCSEs this year as equivalently bright children in the excellent grammar schools."

Presumably because the very brightest of the cohort went to the grammar?