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?

But you're endorsing a system which benefits your children but not the vast majority. While rejecting a system which gives everyone a chance.

You can't say you support selective education if what you mean is you like grammar schools.

And I still haven't had an answer to my original question.

Hak - you keep saying that 'top set people' will do well wherever they are but that is simply not true. You seem to have a real problem grasping that fact.

Sorry - I pressed reply too soon - I meant to add, SOME top set type people will do well wherever they are. Perhaps even MOST of them will. But not all of them.

Hakluyt I understand all that. What I don't understand is why aren't the results significantly better than in a non selective authority? What I don't understand is why they are not significantly better then schools like Parmiters which selects only 25% on academic ability.

"Hak - you keep saying that 'top set people' will do well wherever they are but that is simply not true. You seem to have a real problem grasping that fact."

But they obviously do. Or, as I have said, wholly selective authorities would have much better results than comprehensive ones. But they don't.

"I would still endorse the system even if both my DDs failed the 11+.

but not put your children in the school that they would be allocated if that happened?

You know as well as I do that wholly selective authorities necessarily send rather more than 'top set people' to grammar schools. They send 25% or more there - that's more than 'top set', it's a much wider banding and the real outliers will still be outliers in catchment area grammar schools. That's one of the reasons why wholly selective areas like Kent don't do better, because they are doing the whole selection thing badly.

Ah- well, there is a different debate to be had about the real outliers. I'm not sure what I think about them - but they are presumably no better served by "normal" grammar schools than by comprehensives? So not really relevant in this particular discussion?

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs I posted a question on the other thread asking why you think it is that a Grammar school that is 100% selective does not do significantly better then a selective school like Parmiters which only selects 25% on academic ability. I would be interested in knowing your views on this.

As your DD is going to an all girls GS perhaps this school may be more relevant: www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/23/watford-grammar-school-girls-gcse-rankings

Hakluyt you always advance a simplistic point of view for this debate.
I think CallMeaCynic makes some credible points. Furthermore the crude stats will camouflage DC who would have done better at a selective school or those who would have done better not being at the bottom of an enormous comprehensive.
As I said the independent 'high schools' equivalent serve their cohort very well so it is not necessarily selection that is the problem but a lack of parental choice to best fit their DC plus a narrower choice of extracurricular activities in some state high schools.

Surely it's the crux of this particular discussion. Selection at 11 is a Good Thing but only if done properly (e.g. in Sutton, Kingston etc) rather than when done in the way that Kent does it. The Kent model 'selects' too many people. Superselectives and comps is the model that serves all needs best.

"As I said the independent 'high schools' equivalent serve their cohort"

There is no such thing. All private schools are selective- if only on parental income. And parental income is one of the main indicators of academic achievement.

As far as results go, it is simple. Authority A- comprehensive schools. Authority B, grammar schools and high schools. Results? Almost identical.
So results are not the issue. Somebody down thread talked about social selection. I think that is the elephant in the room. There is only one Mumsnetter honest enough to say that she actually wants to keep her children away from the sort of kids who go to high schools, and that is why it will be grammar or private. Most people are much more mealy mouthed about it. But I do suspect that is the point. I know I have to hold my nerve about some of my ds's friends..........!

I think its right that 25 -30% of children have the chance of an academic education in a selective environment.

The selection process should not come down to one day and 'dots or sequences of lines' that discriminate against bright Dyslexic or Dyspraxic kids. The selection process should involve written work undertaken in 'controlled' conditions . The teacher could get the most able pupils (who could be grammar material) to do an 'assignment' with another teacher in a separate classroom and tell them its important. They do not need to know it formed part of an 11+ exam. That could be one way to eliminate a little bit of 'tutoring' it could also be used so that if a pupil struggled in one test, a good score on the controlled assignment would 'cancel' the poor score in one of the tests.

If results don't differ what is your beef?

Grammar kids and their parents are happy,comp parents are happy.

Oh its really so simple: in an area where 25% or so go to grammar schools there are no comprehensive schools.

I

Actually Hakluyt money with disruptive, poor attitude, drugs etc behaviour go very much hand in hand in a fair number of settings as I am sure you know. I observe a fair amount of 'yobbish' behaviour at at one our local independent 'comprehensive' schools.

The comprehensive my dd attends results for last year were:
97% - 5+ A - C; 94% - 5+ A -C including Maths & English. That's not significantly different to previous years either, it's consistently outstanding.
It's non academically selective, but is a faith school...

That hardly has any particular bearing on those results, though? The two local private schools are nowhere near that good.

There are some 'selective' modern schools though Minty....

Sorry, don't know what you mean smokepole.

Where I live there are certain comprehensive schools who do a sort of selection by stealth. That really gets my back up ... the results are just not honest.

I once tried to find the results for N Ireland which was fully selective, as compared to other places e.g. Norfolk (fully comprehensive). Had no joy. Can anyone point me at these?

Floggingmolly. They have obviously managed not to 'select' low attaining pupils , well done to that comprehensive....