Are superselectives for the very able or only for geniuses?

I really have no idea about the other kids at my dd''s grammar as funnily enough when I meet the parents on those rare occasions we don't swap stories about whether or how much we tutored ouur dcs! So I don't really know how other people seem to know so clearly - as far as I know the dcs never discuss it with friends at school either.

Off my dd's friends from primary school, the only ones who passed the entrance exams were those who HADN'T been tutored professionally ie just helped by parents in the few months prior to exam - all those I know who went in for years of paid tutoring were the ones who failed.

Depends on your definition of 'tutoring' - doing papers at home albeit with parents and not a 'paid for' tutor is still tutoring and is only sensible to get children familiar with the format of the test and practice doing questions at speed.

No one would think of undertaking GCSEs without at least doing some practice papers!

Most children at SS schools have not been tutored since Yr 2 - many do however start practice papers and familiarisation with techniques from about 6 mths before the test

I for one am definitely in favour of grammar schools, having been to one, and also with my niece at one and DD just passed too.

I agree wholeheartedly with the posters who say that the top 10% (in behaviour and ability) are ignored at primary.

I wanted to add, at a grammar school in area of grammars, not all children appear to be tutored. What is interesting is that some children pass the test who clearly find learning a challenge.

My friend who had a fairly bright child did not tutor on principle, she did not get in to DD's SS and her equally bright friend did who was heavily tutored. The first mentioned child was devastated as her two BF's were going to a different school and she really wanted the SS. She was clever enough to fit in.

I think it depends on how much the child wants the chosen school as to whether you should tutor - I sense the parent feels guilty eventhough the girl has gone on to a very good comp. and I'm sure will do very well there.

I have found that a huge majority of children at the grammar schools my DCs are at were heavily tutored and taught how to pass the test, a lot of them started tutoring from year 2-3.
That must put them at an advantage, surely there are many children who would do exceptionally well at grammar school but do not get in because they were not tutored from age 6.

Personally I do not agree with tutoring for these test but I know I am in a minority of parents, my youngest dc is in year 3 now and will sit the entrance exam for the grammar and SS in our area without being tutored, he will do the practice papers at home and luckily has 2 older siblings who have both been through the entrance exam process. He is very bright and IMO that should be enough, if he does not pass the test, it will not be the end of the world, I would rather not put him through hours of learning how to pass a test.

That is interesting thetasimamum. It really is the opposite truth in my daughter's super- selective.

For original post: my daughter was tutored once a week for 10 months which I thought was enough and a shame that we had to do so to be competitive. We found out her friend was also doing 3 papers a day in the last 8 weeks before the test and this seemed to be common. So we did 15 mins prep a day in last six weeks which I resented. It also made my daughter worry all the girls would be swats or off the scale in intelligence.

My DD finds it very easy to learn and once at the school which we decided would support her as her communication skills are particularly strong and we thought the level of discussion would stimulate her, she sails by.

She does not do an excessive amount of homework, just enough and finds her self generally scoring top scores across the board ( she is bright but not a genius) not that she is bothered by that - she enjoys the environment.

@andisa my observation speaking as a parent of a child at a super selective is that most students there were not tutored. There are an increasing number of posh school refugees but they are still a minority.

I think you will find that is a complete myth that only your bright, gifted child from all backgrounds gets into SS schools. My observation is that a few gifted get in on the day, a few from more disadvanatged backgrounds but the majority come form tutored children who are quite bright and prep schools who thoroughly prepare.

SO to answer original question, if your child is averagely bright, they will do fine in a SS, there will be the few who are super achieving for a range of reasons but many are just capable, supported kids.

pooka - it is possible to move away from a system you can be tutored for - you can reaarange the format of the exams each year for example - a hassle but possible.

Not sure how/if my background makes me suitable but I'll look into it. :)

I'm interested in the idea of the head of St Olaves referring to a meritocracy. If only it were - would have to see info on intake, but my own observations/understanding is that pupils from "feeder preps" and also who have had pretty extensive tutoring are perhaps over represented in the SS schools here.

I obviously don't have hard facts on this, but that is my feeling. I don't believe that it is a genuinely level playing field. That is not to knock the state primaries (I know of 4 of which have NO children going to the SS schools next year), but the fact is that children who have not been tutored or coached towards the exams, either professionally, via prep school or by parents, are at an inherent disadvantage. IMO.

bread there's massive, massive support out there, across a spectrum of classes and ages. I think a lot of people are looking to the German model. Your background seems ideal to start exactly that sort of petition and spark a specific debate in the HoC. During the Academies Bill debate the discussion touched briefly on grammars but I don't believe that there's been a proper debate about bringing them back. It's too touchy a subject, so it's skirted around, which is an absolute cop out. Many academics would support a petition (and I'm guessing you know some who would), many successful peole in the legal world, the HTs and retired HTs of the best of the grammars and many, many politicians. It may be that the most vocal aren't those of your own political persuasion but in a sense that's good. There are certainly highly regarded Liberals who benefited from the system and are strong supporters too. Much of the opposition to them must lie in the paucity of provision for those in the old secondary moderns and also the perception of a middle class anschluss of the remaining grammars - a perception which a lot of MN threads bolster. That's the main reason for opposition in the academic world: that grammars currently 'operate through social and cultural exclusion and elitism' (that last is Rowan Tomlinson, a New College don). The Sutton Trust would presumably also be in favour. Quite recently the HT of St. Olave's wrote a piece defending the meritocracy of even the current system compared to the 'buy your way in' tactics that some parents use to get into the catchment of the best of the comps.

I don't know the technical procedure, but it'll all be there on www.parliament.uk under 'e-petitions. You only need 100,000 people to sign up!

How depressing. I'm sure you're right.

But... I think the numbers applying to grammar schools indicates the huge undercurrent of support they must have - i simply don't believe the majority of applicants have parents like pooka, who are applying against their own judgement, to a system they actively dislike. Or are they?

If that genuine desire for a good, free education to be available to the brightest who will benefit from it can be harnessed...?

@bread I do, of course. :) But it will never happen. And the reason it will never happen is because the grammar schools worked. It's not because of the secondary moderns - that is the story that was spun by the entitled entrenched middle classes who were horrified at the number of people from backgrounds like mine who were getting places in the schools they regarded as 'their own'. The system was far too successful at providing social mobility for bright working class kids. So it had to be stopped and we had to retreat back into selection by bank balance and accent and the most perfidious thing of all - the core Tory voting base (thick posh, basically) persuaded (most of) the rest of us that it was for our benefit!

Yellowtip, the results from her less selective school are very good lots of girls go on to RG unis and Oxbridge. The results from the SS school are better but that?s because they only take academic children.

Ywllowtip and bread. It would be great if we had more Grammar style schools the amount of children applying for GS indicates a dire need for more academic schools.

Er... scared. Hold my hand please as not sure where to start? But am also not clear if there is widespread support for more grammars or not - hence my question yesterday.

Other than us two, yellowtip, does anyone else here support more grammars (not exactly reintroduction as they are obviously still here, albeit in tiny numbers)?

As you say, yellowtip, too many people remember what happened with secondary moderns and see it as inevitable that that is the only possible alternative for non-grammar kids. I imagine something more like the second stream, the technical/vocational one they have in Germany which works well there - I know they have a third stream too that is less successful, where they dump immigrants, so I'm not recommending that one...

The huge challenge if grammars were to be re-introduced would be to provide fully for those other strengths, which weren't catered for before. There was very much a 'failure' label attached to those in the secondary moderns.

bread, why don't you start an e-petition through MN for a debate in th HoC on grammars? You're quite clearly eloquent enough and political enough and you've pretty much made the suggestion. At the moment there's tinkering - existing grammars can expand - but all so timid. Plenty of MP's would support you. These other endless reforms are a nonsense.

I think there are huge variations in natural ability but I agree with the argument that given lots of support and encouragement most children will achieve at least enough to go to a good university.

Between my eldest and my second child there is only 1 academic year, and despite my second child being an August born boy I was shocked at the innate ability he has. My DD1 has to work twice as hard on everything, still top of her class but with huge effort and hard graft. My DS1 finds everything massively easy, especially literacy, he was one of those children who taught himself letters at 18 months old whilst we were struggling massively to get my 3 year old DD1 to memorise some before starting school, he learned them straight away just by overhearing. This has just continued and I know that if he does put at least half the effort his sister puts in, he will reach great academic heights.

Despite the huge variation in innate ability though, both children are doing very well at school and I do wonder very often if my DD1 hadn't had the huge support at home where she would be today. Probably somewhere in the bottom set, not in maths but certainly in literacy.

My third child is even worse, he is 4 and has found everything massively hard, he doesn't get colours, letters or numbers and I know he will find school a huge challenge. I am confident though that with loads of support he'll get there in the end. My fourth child is only 2 but looks like her second brother, he seems to grasp things very quickly. So I do believe children from the same family with the same input can demontrate huge variations.

I think there are definite variations in ability - but also that we all have different strengths and weaknesses and everyone has strengths, some academic, some not, that can and should be brought out by our education. I am in favour of grammar schools as a means of lumping together those with similar academic strengths - I'm very not in favour of labelling those who have different strengths, that are not particularly brought out in a grammar school education - as 'failures' in any way or seeing themselves in that light. eg I'm v v good at English but you could leave me with a pack of flat pack furniture for ever and I'd never, ever be able to turn it into what it was supposed to be, and I can't drive. Someomne else might struggle to write a correct sentence but be a maths genius, or a great artist, or a brilliant engineer etc etc etc.

I do agree, andisa, that opportunities that kids have make a huge difference - I'm aware of how my abilities depended in large part on growing up in a middle class home with loads of books and a well-read family given to intellectual argument over the dinner table. Linked to this is the effort kids put in - whilst I do think there are definite variations in ability, the major factor as to whether that is translated into achievement or not is the effort put in by the individual - I think academic success is a habit as much as anything; if you're used to working hard and seeing the results, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But clearly, like all habits, it must be learned from somewhere - harder for a child who comes from a family with no role models.

Is that enough sitting on the fence?

I think that there are huge variations in innate abilty, but I'm no scientist.

I do not think the people are brighter in my road than the children I taught in a summer riot-torn area - far from it. What I do think is that lack of opportunity means they had less chance of achieving.

Just for the record, I do not think that there are huge variations in people's innate ability but I do think that a supportive environment nurtures potential.
I think that it is a lottery if you are exposed to a good education.

I'm not convinced that grammar schools pick the brightest pupils, quite often just the lucky ones.

I myself am a docker's daughter and I think I got to university by luck.

@bread Exactly the same with us.

@andisa without selection testing you have no idea who the "bottom end" are. They may very well live in your road. But in a system with selection by depth of pockets rather than selection by ability you can continue to kid yourself that the people in your road are bright and the people living where you wouldn't dream of living aren't. I grew up in a council flat. Based on where I lived you would have assumed that I was at the bottom end, probably. Couldn't have been farther from the truth. But if I'd had to go to my closest secondary school I definitely wouldn't have ended up at Cambridge.

At my dcs' primary there is ample support for those struggling - but virtually nothing for those finding it way too easy. Can't speak for all schools.

Do "the bottom end" receive lots of support? Who are they? They are often children that can't afford to live in my road.

Schools can cater for all children but it is true, if there are a lot of kids with difficulties or switched off from education, the teacher has to work extra hard to keep them in line.

I think it is a big problem which nobody can afford to solve, so those with privileges use them to allow their own children to thrive - I do.

Quite right - the comprehensives should challenge the brightest as well as help the less able. I'm not a genius, but was very able and went to Russell Group university (didn't even know what RG was pre-mumsnet :) ) from my comprehensive.

What about the middle achievers? Neither the top 10% nor the bottom 10%? I cannot understand how the split between the old grammar/sec mod pupils was achieved. You could have two children, marks apart, and one got the chance to do O' Levels and the other CSE's. Isn't fair.