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?

Read it, Dione- couldn't see an answer to my question there...........could you point me to the relevant bit?

Hak, having read these threads for years, and just taken what you and talkin say on trust - that Kent schools are poor and Hampshire comps are amazing - I was a little surprised to read yesterday that this year at least kent got better results than Hampshire. Since Kent is more disadvantaged than Hampshire too, I'm not sure where that leaves your argument. Or indeed my argument since I've long agreed with you that the kent system doesn't work.

Dodgy Capitalisation due to iPad and a nasty burn on one of my fingers. Sorry.

"I was a little surprised to read yesterday that this year at least kent got better results than Hampshire."

Really? Significantly so? Could you link?

Sorry about the finger.....

Not on my iPad I can't, it doesn't cope well with the Torygraph for some reason (perhaps it has a conscience) but I googled lea results (or similar) and there was a table for GCSEs in that paper. The difference wasn't huge - something like 63% A-C in Kent and 60% A-c in Hampshire - and it's stats - the truth is basically hidden because A*-C is a huge span, but these stats are what we have. As always, sutton and Kingston were there or thereabouts at the top. I think really, the point is that the stats aren't useful. Talkin's actual experience of the schools near here is good, your actual experience is bad and that's more useful than imperfectly presented overall stats - Kent is viewed as quite deprived because some bits of it are but some bits of it are decidedly not. And the other way round for Hampshire. This probably has an impact on the overall stats that non experts can't evaluate. When I'm at my desk I'll look back through my browser history and find the page but as I said, I did a basic google and found it ok.

The finger was my own fault (as always). But it could have been worse. Last time I tangled with our hob I set my hair on fire.

It's the bit that says that the number of children in NI, reaching A-C grades at GCSE is 10 percentage points higher than England and Wales. AS and A Level results are also better. Access to university is more equitable with 41.3% of those from the bottom 4 socioeconomic groups going to university as opposed to a national average of 28.4%.

Interesting. But 15 years ago, and no research into why- could be the selective system- could be any number of other reasons. The article seems to assume that it's a direct consequence of selection but doesn't say why. I tried to open the relevant footnotes but I couldn't.

What other reasons do you think it could be? NI is not a more affluent region. Its history has been one that disrupted social mobility and the provision of education. Although it does have a great many church schools. Perhaps that's the answer.

I have no idea. But you can't just say it is because of selection. Particularly as the effect is not replicated in any other wholly selective authority.

What % of children in LEAs where selection isn't working attend grammar schools?

What do you mean by "selection isn't working"?

Where selection is not benefiting the children in that authority compared to wholly comprehensive LEAs.

Well, in Kent 23% go to grammar school. Those in favour think it benefits that 23%. I don't think even they think it benefits the other 77%. They are just sort of collateral damage.

Hak - Here's the link

Kent are 48th in the GCSE tables, Hampshire are 86th. Bucks (wholly selective?) are 8th, Sutton Kingston Barnet Slough and Trafford (partially selective/super selective) are all in the top 10.

Proves nothing but does belie the received MN wisdom that Kent always does less well than Hampshire at any rate. (I do realise that there are places in Kent that are not within the Kent LEA - Bromley, Medway for a start. Bromley was 4th, Medway was 74th - both still 'above' Hampshire).

Perhaps the problem then is not enough grammar school places in Kent. Maybe some more are necessary so that 40%+ children attend.

What were your thoughts on the 23% that your DC was part of. When striving to get your DS his grammar school place, what were you thinking about the 77%? Did you consider 77% of your DS's year group "collateral damage"?

I think the 77% are massively disadvantaged psychologically, socially and in many ways educationally by the system. I think the 23% are too in different ways.

I don't think it is fair to keep on and on bringing up Hak's kids. She played by the rules of the place in which she lives and when it didn't work out she didn't go private as so many do, she stood by her principles which is to be honest pretty admirable.

Until I realised that Kent schools aren't as bad as I'd been pled to believe I would have said that the problem was there were too many grammar school places, not too few. Now I just don't know. Perhaps there isn't even a problem at a macro scale.

But I am assuming that generally speaking, going over my situation will be as boring to everyone else on here as it is to me. It's not a secret you have cleverly unearthed- but I am happy to say wow, well done if that's what you were hoping for!

But you have absolutely no evidence to say that the entirety of Kent and Bucks and NI are damaged. In fact it's a fairly preposterous assertion.

You asked why LEAs with selection don't do better by the measure of 5 GCSEs. The answer seems to be that some do do better than many non selective LEAs.

None seem to do significantly worse.

It may be that selective LEAs also produce better results for high achievers.

So now you're changing the perceived problem with it.

TheWordFactory You asked why LEAs with selection don't do better by the measure of 5 GCSEs. The answer seems to be that some do do better than many non selective LEAs. One question I would ask is, do LEAs take the results from the school or do they take the results from the children actually living in the LEAs area remit?

To highlight what I mean, some super selectives have no catchment and in some cases have children attending from up to 25 miles away (my local selective schools have quite a number of children coming from Harrow). Does this child's results get included in the results of LEA they live in or the LEA where the school resides?

Are some of the local children being pushed out to areas within the remit of another LEA. If this was to happen, could it be that the results of surrounding LEAs would be lower as they are taking on the lower academic ability range of the selective area?

To be clear, this is not me stating a point, it is me asking what people think.

It's based on the children being educated in the LEA, not on residency. However, to take Kent as an example (because it's always Kent!) - most of the border of Kent is actually water. Not a huge amount of scope for kids who might be expected to perform less well to go elsewhere - and Medway and Bromley - the places they might go - also did better than many wholly comp areas.

"So now you're changing the perceived problem with it " I don't think I was- I thought I
Was just answering another question!

mum you're right it does skew the figures when a selective school has no catchment.

Though not entirely of course and not at all in some boroughs where there are catchment criteria ,

I haven't had a chance to look at the figures people have produced properly- been feeding horses and mumsnettting one handed on my phone!

Looking at the stats Rabbit linked to, what struck me was not which were Grammar/Sec Mod or Comprehensive areas, but that it was a clear reflection of poverty. Crudely: wealthy areas = good results, poor areas = poor results, although there are some LEAs that confound that.