"Pupils shine brightest at grammar schools"

I was talking of people of authority.

I presume you are saying I have little authority, because Yawn1 seems to be very well-versed in the goings of state education.

I was reffering to the president of the campaign for comprehensive schools or whatever it is called.

You are talking about Margaret Tulloch - chair of the Campaign for State Education. Her opinion was recorded in the Times and that is probably what you are referring to. If you check with many other souces e.g. Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc. many of their correspondents are saying the same thing. It had already been noted, before the advent of publication of Value added from Key stage 2 to Key stage 3 that this was the case i.e. less emphasis on key stage 2 prior to transfer to grammars after sitting selection tests mean pupils start from a lower baseline than they would have been expected to and reach their potential for the following 3 years until Key stage 3. When we have publication of value added from Key stage 3 to 4 (GCSE) everyone will see that more value is added at comps.

The truest picture will be obtained when we start the data from foundation stage (age 5) through to end of secondary education at A level.

I can't see how point three is relevant, frankly. That provides no evidence of an actual link. Can we have a link to the reports mentioned in points one and two please? Without having read them I can't really comment. I agree with your position as regards exam results though, btw.

The truest picture will be obtained when we start the data from foundation stage (age 5) through to end of secondary education at A level.

In an embarrassing turn for anti-grammar campaigners, the new 'value-added' ranking which has just been released proves that grammars really are the best schools in the country, and are the best free schools in the world. The teaching is the best in grammars than any other schools.

Grammar is the name given to high schools that used to be selective state schools. Nowadays, most are independant with some sort of state funding, and most (if not all?) are still selective.

A-level? what of those who don't do A-levels, or who go to a comp and then do A-levels at a grammar?

how can you be independent with state funding. Im english but i dont get at what you mean independant. Independent/private/public schools are fee paying schools not provided by the government.

We are talking about the added value are we not?
If I had said that we can measure the value added to an individual by following them from the start of their education to the end of their education at Key stage 4 you would have said "what about those who do A levels?"
If we are looking at the value added of an individual we will see the picture from key stage to key stage so whether they go to a different kind of school from one ks to another we will see the va at a glance.
Do you have a problem with that? Are you perhaps worried that it will illustrate that grammars are not the epitome of education that you maintain they are?

btw you do know that newspapers are not impartial, news rarely is.

Grammar is the name given to high schools that used to be selective state schools. Nowadays, most are independant with some sort of state funding, and most (if not all?) are still selective.

We are talking about the added value are we not?
If I had said that we can measure the value added to an individual by following them from the start of their education to the end of their education at Key stage 4 you would have said "what about those who do A levels?"
If we are looking at the value added of an individual we will see the picture from key stage to key stage so whether they go to a different kind of school from one ks to another we will see the va at a glance.
Do you have a problem with that? Are you perhaps worried that it will illustrate that grammars are not the epitome of education that you maintain they are?

Why dont you try to make more schools like grammers (enjoying the same advantages that they do) rather than trying to make more schools like comprehensives (with the disadvantages that have been illustrated).

Sometimes I wonder why we have a great long thread such as this with the resultant opinions debated when a post like yours takes us back to the beginning