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?

Because the 10% is only 10% and dcs of middle ability do better in comprehensives and there is more of them.

Sorry being distracted there are more middle ability dcs (and indeed more high schools than grammars)

Frogs the figures in Eng lang were screwed in 2012 but the impact affected selective schools too.

Who says middle achievers and low achievers fare well in the comprehensive system? In Talkin's comp only 60% of middle achievers get 5 GCSEs A* to C and only 6% of low achievers get this benchmark.

Grammar schools do better and supers electives probably better again.

Do they, so all the high achievers come from Kent/Bucks and Tiffin grammars? I can't say that I had noticed that.

No one group of children is more or less deserving Hakluyt. Why should lower ability DC be seen as more deserving. What is your logic?

I thought that was the findings of the sutton trust or am I mistaken ?

Are you an admissions tutor for a Russell group LaVolcan , I thought someone upthread said exactly that ?

More academic A levels ? More achieving 3 As?

Well it's certainly true lavolcan that the LEAs who are most successful in terms of getting students into Oxbridge are selective ones.

Who says middle achievers and low achievers fare well in the comprehensive system?

To some extent this depends on the school, but I have noted from friends and family that children of parents who left with few qualifications from the Sec Mods are now getting A levels at their Comprehensives and going on to professional jobs/good quality apprenticeships. Because that idea - you have failed, you are thick, has been removed.

Actually what you notice is that privately educated dcs are over represented in high achieves.

Getting a good apprenticeship is brilliant obviously. But this is not what we should as a society be aspiring to for the dcs getting level 5 and 6 at kS2

I'm not saying the top 10% don't matter: of course they do! But in most discussions where there's a perceived 10 and a perceived 90%, I'd expect more discussion of the 90 than this.

Are you an admissions tutor for a Russell group LaVolcan

No, not me.

Well it's certainly true lavolcan that the LEAs who are most successful in terms of getting students into Oxbridge are selective ones.

Is this so? There is not necessarily a direct correlation. Most grammar schools are in the south of England, as are Oxbridge. Plenty of children from the North are perfectly happy with the likes of Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and don't find the idea of a smallish town in the south-east all that attractive.

Word 'Frogs the figures in Eng lang were screwed in 2012 but the impact affected selective schools too.'

Yes indeeed. Possibly moreso than non selectives if they were more likely to sit the exams terminally. I don't think we have the figures for selective schools yet though?

I was really trying to say that for that particular metric (English GCSE results), that year was a bad one to look at the figures for (for any group) as it is more likely to be atypical.

But this is a discussion about academic selection !!

'Well it's certainly true lavolcan that the LEAs who are most successful in terms of getting students into Oxbridge are selective ones.'

We don't know why this is though. For example, it could be that parents of very bright dc are more likely to move into a grammar area. (There was definitely a Mnetter with a very bright ds some years ago who moved to lincolnshire so he could have a grammar education for example). It would only be parents of notably bright dc who would comfortably pass 11+ (ie oxbridge standard) who would try this tactic I would think, but if enough did it it would affect the figures.

I thought someone had said up thread that the 90 % performed similarly ...

Oh did they? I missed it.

This 10% who nit wants to ignore are potentially the people who are going to pay down the national debt and keep us in our old age. It is in all our interests they are as well educated as they can be....in crass dollar terms they offer a much better return on the investment than the 90% [ shock]

I think that was 90% with SAT 5a, which is a bit different.

Nobody wants to ignore the top 10%.......

StillWishihadabs This 10% who nit wants to ignore are potentially the people who are going to pay down the national debt and keep us in our old age. There again they could have off shore accounts/investments and tax avoidance advisors.

This is just my opinion but I think people who have been state educated have a bit more social conscience than those who went to private or public school. ( no evidence just my experience) they often want to give something back.