Seriously though, why ARE some state secondary schools allowed to select a proportion of their intake? And I'm not talking about religion here.

[Mintyy]

And why don't they all operate on the same admissions systems?

When you believe in and indeed embrace the state system (rather than private) it is quite a shock to discover that there is no single system, it isn't straightforward, and you will be exposed to a whole weird world of cheating/jostling/playing the system amongst your primary school parent chums to get their dc into the school with the best results. Even if the results simply reflect the fact that there is a selected element within the intake!

It sucks, doesn't it?

Not really. Why should those without the financial means to pay for it, have less choice in the Secondary school system?

But mintyy's point is that within the state system some people have choice and others do not.

From my address if I had a very high achieving girl and was religious I could choose from a super selective grammar, a faith school, a girls school or a co-Ed comprehensive. If I had an averagely bright boy and no faith my choice of state Ed is the comprehensive.

Any means of selection, academic or faith , usually serves as an extra opportunity for some, not a genuine choice for all .

Yes, it does suck. What sucks even more is the amount of lying and manipulation by schools which goes on, and the ruthless way they do their utmost not to have to take children with difficulties in case they mess up their league table position.

And I think the situation is exacerbated by the parental frenzy, and a level of lack of understanding about the difference between good results and a good school.

As it happens I am very happy with my closest comprehensive, a good school that serves students if all abilities well, so I am lucky.

Yes. What I am saying is that the state comprehensive system (if this is what you can access or what you choose to access) is NOT a level playing field.

But surely you would expect it to be?

inimitable
Why do you think they behave like that?
Because unless the school are above national averages (which isn't possible - half off all schools HAVE to be below average!!) AND seen to improve results EVERY year regardless of the make up of the cohort, the head teacher and staff are under constant threat of Ofsted catagory, which means capability procedures and losing their jobs.

I don't blame any individual parent who takes up the opportunities presented to them, though, if they do so in a straightforward mom-cheating fashion within the system. Why shouldn't they ?

Non cheating, not mom
Cheating !

The thread header says you aren't talking about faith schools so what are you talking about? Grammar schools? Or schools that select by aptitude?

Grammar schools only exist in some areas of the country. No new grammar schools can be set up.

Schools selecting by aptitude are a legacy of a period when schools could select one or more specialist subjects in return for which they would receive additional funding and be allowed select based on aptitude for that subject. No more than 10% of the intake can be selected on aptitude.

What sucks even more is the amount of lying and manipulation by schools which goes on, and the ruthless way they do their utmost not to have to take children with difficulties

This is often alleged but there is no way a school can do that in the normal admissions round. They simply get a list of candidates to place in order using their admission criteria. The LA will then decide who gets a place. The school does not get references from previous schools, nor does it get to see the child's records. The LA would be likely to catch any obvious manipulation of the list and appeal panels would overturn any attempt to exclude someone who qualified under the admission criteria.

Because unless the school are above national averages (which isn't possible - half off all schools HAVE to be below average!!) AND seen to improve results EVERY year regardless of the make up of the cohort, the head teacher and staff are under constant threat of Ofsted catagory, which means capability procedures and losing their jobs

Rubbish. Schools do not have to be above national averages, nor do they have to improve results every year to avoid being under threat of being placed in a category of concern.

DD's school are allowed about 15 free places a year, which they allocate via a few different tests reflecting the school's speciality.

It's mainly religious selection around here. The Catholic school prioritises Catholics first, then other Christians, then children of other faiths. If you don't have a faith, you're at the bottom of the pile.

Strangely, I don't see the non-religious schools giving priority to atheists. Perhaps they should.

It does irritate me that the state is funding a school that discriminates against my dc on the grounds of her parents' religious beliefs.

I get where you're coming from OP, and to a certain extent I feel the same.

However, I have worked the system to get my ds a music place at a partially selective comprehensive, which offers 15% of its places to children who are musically talented or good at sports.

He was the only child in his primary who achieved highly in music and I wanted him to go to a school where there was a concentration of musically talented children so he could get involved in ensemble playing, and I wanted him to have access to an outstanding music department. These things weren't available in our local comprehensive, partly because we have a few private schools (with generous bursary schemes) and a Catholic school nearby which 'mop up' lots of the musically gifted and musically high achieving children leaving many non-selective state schools denuded of talent.

"This is often alleged but there is no way a school can do that in the normal admissions round."

We have an academy chain which somehow manages to use its 'fair banding' selection process to exclude children with SEN. We have some mainstream schools serving disadvantaged wards in the borough where more than 25% of the children have SEN, and other supposedly non-selective schools serving similar communities in the borough where fewer than 5% of the children have SEN. I really don't know how they achieve this. The schools with a high concentration of children with SEN don't have specialist provision, the children are ending up there by default.

For historical and political reasons.
That's why my children's schools are partially selective (25% academic aptitude, 10% musical aptitude).

This came up on a thread yesterday, didn't it?

About having a number of places selected by a particular ability (eg languages or music)

That came in when there was a move to give schools 'speciality' status, I think. But I can't remember when that was, nor the original justification.

I think I know the one Nicole and TBF, the children selected on Musical Ability are truly amazing (and the Music department is fabulous) - ie they are not selected because of other academic abilities, but on musical talent. The school does actually have a very comprehensive intake, having heard my DC talk and actually seeing them all with my own eyes... However there are a significant number of very highly achieving MC children in at least Y9 and above because of all the MC parents who put the school first (and this part of London is now full of MC families...)

The local school that selects on proximity is far more exclusive (especially in the older years as they have only recently had to adhere to a fair policy on distance) as the houses nearby are £££ and people move to be in the catchment.

But I do agree Mintyy, the comprehensive system is not straight-forward and different comps are not ensured similar intakes.

anothermakesthree Not really. Why should those without the financial means to pay for it, have less choice in the Secondary school system?

I think that is exactly the point the OP is making. As education provision varies from county to county, some people do have less choice than others. Choice, for many, doesn't even come into it.

prh47bridge No more than 10% of the intake can be selected on aptitude.

That is not correct. I know a number of schools that select up to 35% of their intake and Grammars select 100% of their intake.

"I think I know the one Nicolewink and TBF, the children selected on Musical Ability are truly amazing"

What I'm impressed by is the fact that they are so skilled at selecting for aptitude rather than attainment. Music lessons are so sodding expensive that very musical children from disadvantaged backgrounds are generally deprived of a chance to learn an instrument one to one with a good teacher, unless they've come from a primary school with unusually good provision. Our state primary offered one to one (for a fee) but the quality was awful and the lessons very short.

There are children in my dc's year (7) who have reached grade 6 in an instrument who have only got half scholarships and other children who haven't taken formal music exams who have got full scholarships.

prh47bridge No more than 10% of the intake can be selected on aptitude.

Our local 'comp' takes 15% of its intake every year on selected ability based on a science test.

And, of course, any school which selects from 10-35% on any sort of ability (and musical ability often correlates with academic, not to mention mc-ness), then has access to the siblings of those children (who will, more often than not be similarly able), so cohorts can be increasingly full of able children, even if they've not got one of the 10-35% places. That's how you get a 'comprehensive' with grammar school levels of attainment on entry.

Yes, I was going to point out that aptitude tests then allow siblings of able/talented dc to gain places, to the detriment of less talented local dc.

Not forgetting the lottery banding tests found in many successful 'comprehensive' schools in London and other large cities.

Not just Harris schools but this article is about Harris;
disidealist.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/harris-the-hero/

Or in our case they allow the much lower achieving child with SN to gain entry to school in the wake of a higher achieving, brighter sibling....

Meant to add, most 'comprehensives' which select part of their cohort get NOTHING LIKE a grammar school intake, regardless of how popular they are with mc parents. My dc's school still has at about 50% low or average achievers. In comparison 100% of children attending grammar schools are high achieving. There are vanishingly few comprehensives with an intake of higher than 50% high achieving kids and those that are tend to have very rich catchments and not use lottery or fair banding selection processes. Even Harris Academy Crystal Palace - the most oversubscribed comprehensive in the entire country which selects 10% still has an intake which is 40% average and low achieving.

Nicole - your school's fsm rate will be less than 10% soon - for London!