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?

Maybe they were expecting a C or better, or maybe that particular child preferred having a D to not having that particular Gcse, and the school
thought that more important than statiatics?

Always excuses for the superselective brigade.

But when a normal kid in a comprehensive downs tools, it's the schools fault, because it has been decided that by definition, (in some people's eyes) that all comprehensives are rubbish. No amount of telling people that there are good comprehensives and yes, they serve all their children well, not just a few, will make those people believe this.

"However, what were they doing putting someone in for the exam, if they were A/A* quality and they only got a D?"

Why wouldn't they?

"Most Ds at superselectives will have a reason, usually not good, to explain them."

Most Ds at any school will have a reason. The difference is that at a comprehensive school there is a chance that there is a good reason. At a super selective - not so much.

Hang on, this is more a case of the superselectives getting criticized no matter what - so if there were pupils who weren't A* material and they didn't getting kicked out, surely that's a good thing?

Rabbit- but Miranda would have done better than either of them....

As we know the entrance tests are a crude measure, therefore not every child even at grammar school can get all a*

They should still be getting a damn site better than a D - the top sets in comprehensives are expected to do better than that.

We weren't talking about the average grammar though - we were talking of the 'superselectives' which should have the very, very able children in them.

F course they should- but 5 out of 1200 is hardly statistically significant.

Hak - anyone can get sick. Or have something terrible happen. Of course, until it happens to you or someone you know you don't see it that way. Sadly having passed an entrance exam several years previously - or just being bright - doesn't make you immune to disaster. :(

Re Miranda - she fell in the heffalump trap though. So perhaps not (she is my favourite, for sure. There's an ongoing thread about the name Rowan in baby names - I was surprised you hadn't shown up...)

Oh this is stupid.

Clever children get sick,they get heart broken , they get scared...

Of course the odd child will bomb!

What we're discussing here is how high ablity children achieve as a group!

But I bet she never, ever did again! While Laurie would continue to jump feet first into it every time wailing "it's not fair.!!!!!!!!!" as she fell.......

Of course- that's why I'm arguing that a few Ds can be expected even among the best families.........

I agree, Word. I don't understand why we're talking about it.

I am a parent who totally disagrees with the whole principle of grammar schools but would still expect there to be the odd D - there were NO Es NO ungradeds

the expectation of not getting a D can be there for anybody - does not mean the result on the day will be "as expected" Should they get an A* even when their dad just died the week before the actual exam, their parents split up, they have a bad illness

or they had to walk to the exam because the car broke down a mile away and they got bad blisters,soaking wet and freezing cold (my friend when I was exam age - many moons ago)

stuff happens.

Exactly Word. There are very unworldly comments on this thread. There's also a distinct lack of reality about the spread of grades that an average child at a superselective will get. It's incorrect that 'most' get all A*. The top 8% or so of that top 10% might, with a fair wind behind them.

Hakluyt, could you tell us what your DD's school website says about their breakdown of grades, either for 2013 or this year? You know, numbers of exams taken, numbers of A*/ A/ B etc. Because I'd expect a fair smattering of Bs or even lower, not just a few. 20% maybe, at a guess?

Marni23 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.*

Unfortunately what the various statistics will never show you is the proportion of children at the various schools who are also using the services of private tutors/tuition services etc.

From personal experience, every child I know who is planning on sitting the 11 plus is currently using a tutor/tuition centre.

I know a number of families who have children in the local selective schools who are still using private tutors even though their children have gained a place at the selective school. According to those parents the use of tutors is very much the norm.

From personal experience alone, I would say that the biggest corruption of perceived performance at my local selective schools is the use of private tuition. It makes it pretty much impossible to know how much of the actual attainment is down to the efforts of the school.

I don't know anyone at our superselective who uses private tutors except the people who want to do theory exams and can't stay behind after school for the free theory lessons because of the school buses (this includes/has included all my kids (including the one at comp)). Theory exams aren't part of a school's remit obviously but they can help with GCSE and A level music so I suppose it's not completely unrelated.

In the exam threads over the years I've seen lots of mention of booster sessions etc. I expect the parents of kids attending those don't consider them to be tutoring - but they are. No booster sessions at our school. Just regular lessons in lesson time.

That doesn't square in any way with my experience Mum. I don't know of a single friend of any of my DC who is using or has ever used a private tutor to 'supplement' teaching. Certainly none of my DC ever have. Even if I had the spare cash lying around, I'd consider it dangerous to have two different people teaching the same thing - potentially very muddling. Are you quite sure that it's not yet another urban myth?

That's interesting Mum and a fair point if true across the board for selective schools.

It doesn't explain why 65% of L5+ children fail to achieve A*/As in English & Maths in non-selective schools though.

RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria I don't know anyone at our superselective who uses private tutors which is why I emphasised that I was referring to my area. I will add that I am in a semi selective area not grammar or super selective. Interestingly, however, the schools do boast about their excellent results - Parmiters, Watford Boys & Watford Girls.

BTW I know 2 boys at Queen Elizabeth Barnet who are using tutors. I understand that this school is classed as a super selective. Again their parents claim that this is very much the norm. However, as I don't have DCs at the school, I am happy to stand corrected if this is not the case.

Molio Are you quite sure that it's not yet another urban myth? Given that these are friends who have not only told me they are using tutors, they have actually given me the contact details for the tutors in case I want to use them.

Tutoring is a thing in all sectors.

You will regularly hear posters say they are not going to send their DC private and will spend the saved cash on enrichment activities and tutors.

word Yep. Lots of tutors at DS's comp. I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't go that route for him too (but god knows where we would find the time or the cash - the parental taxi service is already pretty jammed every evening and the cupboard, she is bare).

Just to pick up on a couple of points.

The nearest Grammar school to here is 25 miles away in another county.
There are two local Catholic schools that are not strongly Catholic but get great academic results.
We are knee deep in private schools, many of which cater to out of county families.
All the other schools near here are geographic comps.

Extract from DCs school website for 2013
67% Achieve 5 A-C including English & Maths ~ 56% of all entries graded A, A or B ~ 40% of all students achieve EBAC

To the best of my knowledge, in the last three years they have had roughly 20-30 kids getting nothing lower than an A out of a cohort of 300.
Certainly on results days there was a huddle of them with solid A^ / A* / A grades (and the top sets all took between 11 and 14 subjects)

Now I'm sure those kids might be able to convert that into straight stars and hats at a superselective
BUT
I'm utterly not convinced that the kids at the superselective would not still get their stellar grades if they were in groups of ten and twenty at their local schools.

RabbitOfNegativeEuphoria word Yep. Lots of tutors at DS's comp as per my point. If the use of private tuition is common, they how much are the results of your DSs school attributed to the efforts of the school itself? Is the school really as good as it claims to be?