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?

State education will never be a level playing field.

Far,far more parents enjoy financial selection than any other kind. Those that enjoy places in the perceived better schools because others can't afford the bus fares to bus out or expensive blazers. Or even worse those that can afford to rent or buy in catchments for the better schools. The numbers are huge.

The selection in secondary schools with the more able being creamed off into top sets,often taught by different teachers,smaller classes and little SEN goes on all the time but funnily enough many parents are happy with that.

If you want true fairness a lottery system with completely mixed classes is the only way to go. But even that wouldn't rectify the fact that many children have advantages from birth. Those that are read to have higher vocabularies regardless of wealth,those that have more books or interested parents will have more advantages again and thus better exam results and life chances.Perhaps we should go one better and have a point system and those with parents who put education as a priority should have points deducted from GCSEs. Then education would be truly fair.

Streaming within a school is fair as it's available to all the children.

No it isn't if they have come from weaker primaries, they are disadvantaged before they start. Many use Sats and it is hard to move sets once in a lower one. Going by the anti grammar brigade bright kids working alongside other bright kids is advantageous so an unfair advantage for those in lower sets.

Also at one of the comps we were looking at the very able are creamed off into smaller groups. Not exactly fair on those other kids stuck in classes of nearly 30 and disruption.

It's widely known that are our feeder comp is fine if your kid gets into the top sets as they're pushed more and have less disruption. Not that easy to work your way out of a set with disruption and less pushing in my experience.

The kids with less interested parents will also find it extremely difficult to move sets as having interested educated parents is the biggest advantage of all.

So no it is far from fair going by some of the arguments on here.

Always makes me chuckle the posters who berate the "advantages" they see other kids get which their own don't whilst happily taking up other advantages which benefit their own and disadvantage others- on a far bigger scale.

I believe the word is hypocrisy.

I don't like streaming, as it only works for kids who are equal across the board.
Setting though is another matter. Although round here top sets don't have fewer numbers. And aren't exclusively true high ability, making up the numbers usually prevents it. I don't mind mixed ability teaching if it's a mixed ability group, but with individual differentiation so all children work at an individual level appropriate for them. If it's the mixed ability that passes in some local schools as hold the high ability kids back and work at a level suited to the average and less able, then setting is the only way to even stand a chance of getting appropriate level work. And not always then.
Tbh I'm happy with my dd in mixed ability, if she isn't expected to sacrifice her potential to the greater good. When a school can't manage that, then practically speaking the only other resort is safety in numbers from an able cohort to be taught in. And to an extent, some subjects and content does need a less mixed group just to teach it. Eg no point forcing a child massively struggling to do separate science or two languages, or a useless one like me to do music, but unfair to stop others doing them because they all can't. If that disadvantages less able kids, then until there is another choice available locally for my dd, other than disadvantaging her, then like any parent I'm going to put mine first. I don't notice kids better off in other areas, eg parental income, time, holidays, family support etc being expected to give it up and share with worse off class mates, so I'm not sure why when it comes to academic ability, all, regardless of background, should be expected to put others education first.

Although in theory no part of the education system should be putting the onus on disadvantaging one child for another, there are ways round it for the most part as some schools do manage it well.

Lily I hope the 'hypocrisy' comment wasn't aimed at me . If so, it was very rude!

I know my DC are unfairly 'advantaged' over other kids, we could chose whether they went to private school, the grammar school in the next town or the local 'naice' comp. All very good options. It doesn't mean I don't dissaprove of selective state schools.

I get your point that streaming can still be unfair but, if it's implemented carefully, it's still a whole lot fairer than state selective schools.

Pressabutton
Streaming is awful : your mark in maths determines your set in English and humanities and PE - top in all or bottom in all

Setting is fab :
Good at maths, top set in maths :
middling at English , 3rd set in English
crap at PE, bottom set at PE
so every child gets the chance to excel

No every child doesn't get the chance to excel.

Those without supportive parents are pushed out of the top sets. Those suffering from disruption are held back. Those in schools that require improvement or which are coasting(often in the less wealthier areas) have a different comp education.

Those without supportive parents are pushed out of the top sets
how?

and please define a "coasting" school ...
in R U M terms that are comparable to any professional appraisal

Ta1kinPeace oh, I see, I was confusing the two things. My DC were educated abroad until they were teens. I was happy that they didn't have to do SATS etc. I think they were in top sets in their 'leafy' comp but I'm not sure. I found the whole system confusing and I'm British. Goodness knows how parents who don't speak English well manage.
I've lived in countries where kids automatically go to their local schools. If the schools are in poorer neighbourhoods they would attract extra funding and support to balance things out a bit.