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?

Hakluyt my understanding is that is unlikely to happen in Hampshire and therefore it can be seen as a model for a truly comprehensive education and as Talkin as previously pointed out a model for what the best comprehensives can achieve. However despite all that there still seems to be a difference in As achieved (from what Talkin* says of her DD's cohort) for the top 10% ability range compared to top 10% in the excellent grammars.

I'm a bit puzzled actually. Assuming that Talkin's dd's results are typical of the comprehensive top set, they also seem pretty similar to the grammars I know (not super selective) Only a handful got all As (including dn- proud aunt emoticon) lots all As and As and few with a B or 2.

Blimey - there is some startling arrogance on display here! And not a small dollop of buffoonery.

talking assumes that her DD will be employing the thick kids in her school! And perhaps those children at the shithole comp (her words) that she drives past each morning.

And still nobody has answered my original question...........

That's what I was asking earlier hak.

What is the percentage of A*s attained as an average at grammar school?

There must be actual figures you would think. And average AS scores. Places at selective universities etc

At least one of the papers gives the results be grade rather than the A/A or A/B combination - but I can't remember which one (not the Graun though) - but that's before the appeals are through and the results are finalized. And even if you were trying to analyze the published info you'd need to know which schools were grammar (some grammars don't have grammar in the name, some schools with grammar in the name are private), and which were super selective. I really don't think you can make a comparison that would really stand up.

At the very good grammars at least half will on average achieve 5A*, as a rough guide.

There are all sorts of other variables which make comparison dull: some schools take far fewer GCSEs than others, with an eye on league tables and results rather than breadth. Some schools split exams over the two year period rather than taking them all in one go, again with an eye on league tables. Some schools offer 'softer' options, to suit their intake. So these numbers are all pretty crude.

I went onto the individual school websites for my local area - and the answers were pretty much as expected ...

our local super selective grammar school
GCSE A* results for 2013 =59% (D - the lowest anyone entered did =0.4%)

our local general grammar school
GCSE A* results for 2013= 32% (D - the lowest 0.7%)

our local "good" comp (where my kids go, and if they continue with current performance, are expected to get As)
GCSE A results for 2013 =3% (D - not the lowest = 19%)

Not sure what it tells you other than selection means higher average grades - which is the point of selection.

My impression is that the good with top 10% intake grammar schools have 50-60% A. Hopefully Talkin* can give us a rough idea if that it equivalent or more than her comprehensive's top 10% which is the impression I have formed from what she says.

just I suppose, even to make a crude comparison, you would be looking at the top sets at the comp and seeing how they did ie take the middle and low achievers from the equation.

Ofsted produced a report ('The Most Able Students') in 2013 which stated that '65% of pupils who achieved Level 5 or above in both English and Maths at the end of Year 6 failed to attain A* or A grades in both these subjects at GCSE in 2012 in non-selective schools'.

I can't find any comparable data for state selective schools but suspect the figures would be very different.

Hak when you ask 'why do wholly selective authorities not produce significantly better exam results than demographically similar wholly comprehensive authorities?' are you referring to the 5 A*-C measure? Because that seems to me to be a pretty blunt instrument when considering the top 10-20% of the cohort and comparing their performance in the different sectors.

Wouldn't a less crude comparison be to take the top seven (ish) from the top sets of a comprehensive and see if their full sweep of A and A*s compared with those at a grammar? Just thinking here, I think we have eight state comprehensives. In pre-comp days, there were four grammars, though both sec mods and grammars were smaller than almost any school would be now. Suppose we got two, now - that's 56 kids from all the top sets that currently exist, to be two grammar top sets.

Thinking about it in terms of numbers, it's really alarming to think how many would have to be taken from all eight schools to form two grammars! It's more than just the top sets (240 kids) by a long chalk. No wonder nobody wanted to go to a secondary modern.

^our local super selective grammar school
GCSE A* results for 2013 =59% (D - the lowest anyone entered did =0.4%)^

Don't the super selectives only take the top 5% or fewer? So is the A rate any more than you could expect? Why have they got any* Ds? That is a long chalk from being superselective quality.

Well, there are always anomalies. Kids go off the rails. Or are ill. Or have mental blocks......in any cohort it is possible that you might get a D. Possible, but not likely in a super selective. There were a couple in my dd's class- the ones I know about just stopped working. Not much a school can do about a determined refusenik!

the 0.4% D equates to 5 D grades over the whole year's exams (over 1300 actual exams)

2 Latin, 2 Theatre Studies and 1 History.

(there were 12 C grades over the whole year too, mainly theatre studies - what is the betting that subject gets dropped))

LaVolcan, I know which superselective it is and this school is regularly amongst the top 10 schools in the country, even including private schools. So out of 1200 or so Gcse grades 5ish came out as D, 700 or so as A* - and that's not superselective enough?

Theatre studies is not offered at gcse anymore

As an aside, it also shows that theatre studies is a bloody sight harder than a lot of people think- the written element is a bit of a Pooh trap for heffalumps for bright kids who do brilliantly in the practical and assume the written will be a doddle......

aqa drama was marked very harshly this year I believe.

Dd's school asked for a remark of all the theatre studies exams. There were Bs. Imagine!!!!

Hak - I bet Lawrie would have aced the practical, bombed out on the writing and been all 'it's not fair' when Nick ended up with a higher grade! ;) I make my kids read the relevant bit in summer term every time they have exams. Just to, you know, remind them...

Theatre studies is not offered at gcse anymore

.... that made me laugh - had just seen that on the website.....

If DD2 does drama GCSE she will do it through her theatre group, not her school. It seems the sensible approach.

So out of 1200 or so Gcse grades 5ish came out as D, 700 or so as A* - and that's not superselective enough?

That wasn't what I asked - they shouldn't get any Ds, except as Hakluyt explains you can't force a child to work. However, what were they doing putting someone in for the exam, if they were A/A* quality and they only got a D?

Out of a cohort of 100 or 120 it's only to be expected that some kids will get Ds, through illness, exam meltdown, whatever. It's a bit lacking in imagination not to get that some kids often go through a tough time around exam time, especially if they feel under pressure. Of course they might also down tools, as Hakluyt says. Most Ds at superselectives will have a reason, usually not good, to explain them. I wouldn't judge the school any more than the child.