Are superselectives for the very able or only for geniuses?

I know my dd spent her entire primary years bored because the work was too easy - is that fair? why should she not receive work at a suitable level, same as kids at the bottom end of the ability range receive extra support so that the educational experience is appropriate for them?

Will just have to agree to disagree thetasigmamum. :)

I hate the idea (only an idea - it doesn't thankfully happen in our area) of dd's classmates being routinely tested and sorted, of 10 year olds being dumped in a secondary modern or elevated to grammar school on the basis of their performance on one day.

Far better in general to offer enrichment/differentiation and help for the most able/most challenged within one school IMO.

As it is, I may choose for dd to sit out of borough tests or for the SS in borough when the time comes. Makes me cross and feel like a hypocrite, but if these schools seem like a good fit for her, then so be it.

comprehensives can and do work. There are lots of dynamic schools doing really good things. What doesn't work is poverty - all sorts of educational difficulties centre around poverty.

Social class is also relevant - a far smaller proportion of working class children really thrive at school for all sorts of English cultral reasons and some more probably.

Trouble is, when you value education, where do you put your own children? It is tricky and I took the priveledges my area offered.

Aaargh. Pressed return too soon. The other problem with comprehensives which operate a distance based admission criteria is that they are really operating selection by bank balance. Which is fundamentally wrong.

@Pooka you may not agree, but nevertheless you are wrong. One size does not fit all. It doesn't fit the very top percentiles and it doesn't fit the very bottom ones either. Comprehensives are an exercise in pragmatism and the art of the possible. Everything tends to the middle range. Outliers are tolerated to an extent but not at the very ends of the bell curve.

I don't really agree. I went to a comprehensive school, properly comprehensive so not in a grammar area or near one. With streaming/setting one school can I think fit all. The problems arise when the comprehensives are competing with the grammars/super selectives for the band 1 top ability pupils, when top slicing occurs.

Where I live now, it is expected that the more academic pupils will aim for grammars in neighbouring boroughs or the super selectives in borough. There is loss of confidence in the comprehensives because of this and I suppose the expectation or assumption is that a clever child cannot achieve top results in the comprehensive which should not be the case.

From my perspective it puts me in the position of feeling crap for thinking of applying for grammars because I don't fundamentally agree with the two tier system but at the same time being concerned that the top set cohort in the comprehensive would not be large enough to balance the school and provide challenge for dcs if you see what I mean.

Is a thorny issue.

@pooka but right now we have the problem that too many students aren't receiving an appropriate education because one size does not fit all.

Oh yes, people get all excited about the idea of more and more grammar schools.

I rarely hear people wishng that there were secondary moderns again.

And that is the problem - the more grammars there are, the more top slicing that occurs and the more 11 year olds who don't perform on the day of the test or are just simply not as clever are relegated to the bottom tier before their secondary education has even begun. :(

In response to your 17.10 post.

Yes bread me.

My father was another East European refugee whose wealth (a suitcase with a few clothes) gave him no option but to aspire through education to a new lease of life.

Both my parents-in-law, who came fron uneducated working class families, made good in the grammar system. My uncle who came here as a penniless refugee became an Oxford Professor via the grammar school system. And so many more.

I think everyone should be entitled to an education that suits them - not everyone is academically interested and lumping together those who are with those who aren't makes everyone's lives hard - the bright, the non-academic and not least the teachers!

Not sure grammar system is fair - creams off certain type from certain background. However, competitive comps are also about house prices!

Saying that, I want my kids in settled schools with exciting learning and a record of academic success - feel I pay to get that, house price, tutors!

System is not fair but we have to live within it.

My mum would join your shout for grammars, went to a super selective grammar, all those years ago, from a docker's family on a housing estate - feels it gave her a ticket to a different world and has blessed her all her life!. She's overjoyed her DGD joined her in grammar school pursuit.

Thinking about my earlier post, I suppose the issue is not whether the kids who get into grammar schools are all geniuses - they're absolutely not, and I say that confidently as a non-genius grammar school girl! - but whether bright children (or indeed even geniuses) fail to get into grammar schools. The answer there is simply yes - as there are more bright pupils who under the old standards would have been classed as 'grammar school material' than there are places.

So it falls to a single set of exams on a single day to sort out the wheat from the chaff - no surprise that some of the wheat misses out because of having a bad day or because their skills aren't adequately assessed or assessed at all in those particular exams.

The solution = more grammar schools!

It's very clear to me that I am not the only fan of grammar schools. Given how popular they are and how oversubscribed, it is singularly odd that no political party supports their return. Can't see this govt doing it as they are only interested in a good education for the rich and/or to benefit their friends who can squeeze some cash out of the state system. :(

Anyone joining me in a campaign for their return??

At DD2s school, they have parent evenings where they show videos of lessons that have been filmed, give out lesson plans and talk about in in some detail about how they teach. DD1 describes her lessons in a way which makes me think they are similar to the format I had at my old school many years ago.

Work in a grammar. DD at super selective. DS at high flying comp. Worked in indie, high result comp and challenging comp. Work near a super-selective and we are compared - so I do have some experience to base my opinions on.

DD loves her school. I'm happy. Would prefer that some of her lessons were not so uninspired though - tests, silence and complaining does the latin teacher! Can happen anywhere but they seem to get away with it more in super selectives methinks.

I have a DD at a super selective and a DS at the local comp (which although I wouldn't describe it as high flying is the best comp in the area and one of the top 4 state schools in the county). I have no comment on the ways the teachers at either school plan or deliver their lessons, whether they are innovative, interesting, boring, traditional. I haven't attended any of those lessons and anyway, I'm not a teacher, so how would I possibly know?

Both my kids are very happy at school and both seem to be doing well (DS is only in Y7)

Having a DD at a super selective and one at a high flying comp I do agree with Andisa that the teachers at the comp do definitely try hard to plan lessons that are very innovative and interesting. I don't know if they are better or worse than those at the super selective which has more traditional teaching methods, just different.

@andisa how many super selectives are you basing your comments on? And comparing to how many (and which) 'high flying comps'?

My experience of super selective is pupils are interesting and on the whole well behaved. Lots of opportunities for extra curricular because the teachers are no too tired from managing behaviour. Some exciting initiatives but do agree that teaching standards are bit below your high flying comp. Pupils cope, put up with it but some teachers just talk - not really what should be going on in a 2012 school. Some teachers get away with being less than dynamic.

yellowtip I am by no means saying that is an intellect to envy and what I had said is a 'capability'. The point I am trying to get across is that to me 'genius level' would be a child who say at the age of 11 is showing the intellect of an 18 year old/Einstein/Stephen Hawkings! I was just trying to use an extreme example. I do feel really sorry for the kids you see who are being pushed to do a gsce at age 7 say and you do wonder what happens to them as they grow into adulthood...
I was just saying to the OP that experience in my school (which was quite a time ago) showed that very able students were able to pass the entrance tests and did do very well and therefore I would think that her DD would fit in in such an environment.

shootingstarz I'm really curious about the relative results of the two schools.

clucky80 that's an unusual measure of genius! I would say that an 11 year old applying to Oxford or Cambridge has a parental background to pity rather than an intellect to envy.

I wouldn't have thought 3 weeks was enough to establish that the work was a year behind in every subject - how on earth would you judge with a subject like, say, geography?

Yellowtip, when there was a selective system, there was definitely a pecking order; with the Direct Grant schools at the top, the Voluntary Aided schools in the middle and the County Grammars at the bottom.

I went to a superselective grammar school in Barnet in North London and am by no means a genius! I did have a tutor in my last year of primary school who I remember did some English work with me, comprehensions etc and maths and I had to follow some work books. The entrance process for me was an English exam and maths exam and if you passed this test you and your parents were interviewed by the Head (individually) where I had to read a piece that was given to me and was then asked questions on it and was asked general questions about myself. I was probably fairly bright in primary school and English was my strong point and I loved reading. My parents were told that at the age of 10 I had a reading age of 16 etc. My maths wasn't up to the same standards but was good enough to get me into the school. My sister also attended the school and left in 2004. Her entrance exam also included the reasoning tests. She had a tutor and from what I can remember she was tested on things that definitely wouldn't have been taught at that stage in primary school (pythagoras theorem springs to mind but I cannot say for definite!). She is extremely bright and has done very well and is working in Law now. She has a fantastic memory which is something that is always particularly useful when taking exams! I would say that about a fifth or quarter of my year group (90 pupils per year) went to Oxbridge and everyone in the whole year bar one, went to university. I think that attending a grammar motivated me to work harder than if I had been in my local comp (which had a terrible reputation) as it was such a competitive environment. I was distinctly average for the school though! What was good for me was that the school was v small and pastoral care was very good - I had much ill health and had to miss quite a lot of time from school and if I had been in a much bigger school I may have been 'lost'. In terms of geniuses there were maybe 1 or 2 in the year who really stood out but there were more people who would perform spectacularly in one or two particular subjects but would not be 'genius-like' across the board. It depends on what you mean by genius though as I would probably define an 11 year old with a capability of getting into Oxbridge a genius ie. very rare.

Yellowtyip - yes you are right of course, the system it could be a lot worse

Yellowtip I know 3 weeks is not a long time but when things are drastically behind it?s not worth waiting.