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?

80% of the class going to grammar - whereabouts do you live?!

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs mum I think about 80% of her Yr6 class got into the grammars. 80%, really? How many children were in your DDs year and what is the PAN for the Grammar?

TsukuruTazaki 80% of the class going to grammar - whereabouts do you live?! Does make you wonder how LaQueenOnHerHolibobs can think that particular grammar is taking just "top group" children unless 80% of the children in her DDs year were in the top group which sounds very strange.

Ha. I went to a girls' grammar school and could tell stories that would make your hair curl. It was certainly not immune from bullying, drink, sex and drugs. Girls all together can be quite evil. And very competitive. Not necessarily in the good ways....

PortofinoRevisited Ha. I went to a girls' grammar school and could tell stories that would make your hair curl. It was certainly not immune from bullying, drink, sex and drugs. Girls all together can be quite evil. And very competitive. Not necessarily in the good ways.... this is exactly why I have to question the decision LaQueenOnHerHolibobs has made to put her DD into an all girls grammar if bulling and disruptive behaviour was the real determining factor. I think they are going to be on a steep learning curve when it comes to dealing with clever bullies that use psychological bulling rather than physical bulling (which is far more detectable).

sorry bullying not bulling

Portofino. Have you been watching the film 'Scrubbers' from 1982.

Your school sounds like a girls borstal ....

Sod the covert bragging on this thread, let's make it overt: dd1 went to our local comp (no grammar schools here, so that ethical dilemma was off the table), and has just left sixth form with all A*s. So, um, I don't think I'm contributing much here except to say that I think a lot is down to how much work they do. I also reckon it does them no harm in terms of life skills to rub along with a peer group that isn't necessarily academic.

Mostly though, I am just posting to show off.

I don't really like selection, but I don't honestly think the comprehensive system is any better. Within 10 miles of where I live the best schools have almost 80% 5 A-C inc maths and english and the high ability get average GCSE grades of A-. The worst schools have 30% 5 A-C inc maths and english and the high ability get average GCSE grades of C-. They are all 'comprehensive' in name, but strong selection by postcode occurs, so that the reality is a polarity of schools about as stark as the difference between grammar and sec modern. It's really no fairer than an exam at 11 - some children end up at great schools and some at rubbish ones, in some ways I prefer an exam to a postcode lottery.

BOFster Mostly though, I am just posting to show off. sounds like you have good reason to so congrats to you and your DD.

I also reckon it does them no harm in terms of life skills to rub along with a peer group that isn't necessarily academic. I fully agree as I doubt they will be rubbing shoulders with huge numbers of grammar school leavers when they go into full time employment.

at BoF, she really did do well.
DS1 got 10 GCSE's at his comp, we went to the open days at the grammar, he hated it, one teacher was a total snob and turned away from DS after asking what school he had been to.
DS refused to go and we backed him.
He has a very decent job now as a marine electrician on very swanky yachts belonging to very swanky folks.
A nicer young man you could not meet.

frogsinapond in some ways I prefer an exam to a postcode lottery. I'll swap with you assuming you can sufficiently prepare your DC for an exam that they will need to get between 95%-100% in just to be in the running and then you will also need to be within 225 metres of the school to be in with a definite chance of getting one of 21 places.

Girls Borstal? Hardly. It was a naice school, but there seems to be a view that you can cross off a load of issues such as bullying by going to Grammar School. As mumtrying says above, actually you just get a more intelligent form of bully.

Mumtryingherbest, sounds like you have the worst of both sytems . The only reason I think an exam may be preferable is that it avoids the geographical segregation of rich and poor that the postcode system gives. The wealthy largely manage to secure places at the better schools ether way (by moving or tutoring), but at least with the exam system its only the schools that are socially divisive, not the neighbourhoods too.

It's either 80% of the class or it's the brightest and the best, LaQueen- you can't have both!

frogsinapond Mumtryingherbest, sounds like you have the worst of both sytems I think you will find that many areas that have 11 plus have the same situation as I do. The problem is caused by the lack of school places at "outstanding" schools. Every parent wants what is best for their children, this extends to education. If a school is labelled "outstanding" parents rightly or wrongly feel that it will give their DC the best chances in obtaining a good education, leading to better opportunities later in life. The 11 plus does not make the system fairer, easier or more affordable it is simply a different route with the same outlay.

My school was a 'mixed borstal' I think we should have had some boys/girls sent to borstal ( or whatever there were called in the mid 1980s).
My school was just a building for rounding up the worst kids and keeping them together, so the police knew where we were from 9-3 though most were 'wagging' Monday's and Friday's.

What is interesting though that my brother and sister were twins (5 years older than me) Brother went to my school came out with 2 CSE grade 2 s sister went to the grammar and came out with 2 A grade A levels ( would have been three if she had not walked out of her French exam). both have done fantastically well brother has gone on to a business career in Cheshire. Sister has become a partner in a accountancy practice ( doing all her exams in her career and next year has been accepted for a MSC in Mathematical Finance at Oxford. I am the one who has 'done' bugger all and was the one who had to work for my parents.

The point I am trying to say is that despite what school you attend, you can still be a great success later in life. Another thing that is unusual is that as a family we have attended all types of schools.

Brother , me DD1 Kent Modern schools
Sister, DD2 DS, Kent Grammars
Niece no1 Nephew, Essex Super Selectives
Niece no2 Big Name Girls Boarding Berkshire
Nephew no2 Cheshire Mixed Independent.

I guess it makes me aware of all the types of schools that are available and the different educational experiences each school can offer.

Sorry for being boring, but it just came out...

LaQueenOnHerHolibobs last year only 4 out of s class of 16 passed. Did you DD go to a private prep as a class size of 16 is very, very small and quite unusual in a state primary school unless the school is seriously under subscribed.

This year which is DD2's year I think only 2 of her friends will pass. How on earth are you able to determine how many will or will not pass even before the exam has been taken?

The simple answer to the question asked by the OP is that there's the same average spread of children and ability in areas, regardless of the schools, so you'll get broadly the same results.

Where I live, we have 2 super-selectives that cream off the top ability. They get 100% A* to C every year. You then have two faith schools that strongly select based on church attendance but actually try to cream off what is meant to be the next layer, and then there's the 'all the rest school'.

Looking at that model, you'd expect the last school to be the worst, and demographically it should be. Lots of children from poorer backgrounds, the city's sink estate and the rest. The "bad eggs" as some shittily call them.

However, it comes out with a 60-70% pass rate, has the best value added score in the area and is known for it's fantastic pastoral care. It's an excellent school, with low levels of bullying, excellent behaviour and children who achieve above expectations.

Where the girls school is renowned for bullying (brushed under the carpet), the boys has little to no pastoral care whatsoever so kids with home problems and the rest quite often leave (better to get rid than deal with it) and so on, and so on.

This isn't the same everywhere, of course. It just irks me somewhat that the automatic assumption is that Grammar = nice children and nice behaviour where comprehensive = not so nice children and behaviour.

I went to the girls school here. There were as many bad eggs as there were at other schools. Just ones with better academic ability. Problems being brushed under the carpet, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Any school that claims to have no bullying is lying. And "upward" bullying for being a swot happens at grammar schools. As does "downward" bullying for being thick- try being the one who gets Cs and see how lovely and supportive an atmosphere it is!

The bullying is just less obvious because the kids doing it are cleverer.

At a grammar, the 'top set' is comprised of say, the top 20% of pupils who are already ( supposedly) in the top 20% of academic ability.

So they should be more than one grade ahead. Actually they should be more than that because the local comp/HS next to a grammar all the kids should (if the system worked) be better than the top set at the comp.

It implies the comp are doing better than the grammar, have better teachers and are more encouraging.