Are superselectives for the very able or only for geniuses?

@Yellowtip Croydon catholics were just so lucky to have Coloma, although obviously not everybody could go there. But in those days St Mary's wasn't bad (I understand things have changed though :( )

Mind you, I think it's heyday is over. I'm not sure if I helped the decline.

MMM - if NW or StO, then yes, my area!

Think I'm in MMM and Pooka's area also, thanks for the tips about NW open evening.

That was the beauty of the direct grant system thetasigmamum. It bought me a place at Croydon High.

Three weeks isn't giving it much of a shot but at least it would have helped the child who filled her place.

@Yellowtip I only know about the catholic schools. And it's only from what I remember older children talking about because I was the first comp year. BUT as I remember it, the boys with the highest scores went to John Fisher, the boys with the lower scores went to St Josephs - so if you were a boy your choice was Purley or Buelah Hill. Not great if you lived in Waddon like I did. The top scoring girls went to St Anns I think but Coloma got better results so....And of course Coloma swallowed up St Anns. St Anns always had fee paying people too though (until it merged with Coloma) so maybe that was it - perhaps it operated like Trinity and Whitgift and scooped up the very top 11+ scores. There is a partner in my firm who grew up not very far away from me who went to Trinity because of scoring very high on the 11+.

Opps I meant now thriving.

Oh yes that would make sense - I would have just left school by 1989 and I didn't live in a grammar area at the time so it probably all passed me by.

Presumably the GCSE and A Level results from the non selective indie far exceed those of the top of the league highly selective state school then shootingstarz? By how much?

DD attended a non selective independent school, I moved her to a top of the league highly selective school because I thought it would be a better choice of school academically. She went to the super selective for 3 weeks the work was a year behind her non selective school in every subject, needless to say I moved her back to her old school where she is non thriving in every subject.

Actually I think I do remember there being a pecking order in the Croydon/ Surrey area too now you say that thetasigmamum. I'm quite curious to find out the mechanics of the system back then and see how it worked.

Anyhow, I stand corrected. Though I suppose superselectives then were superselective in terms of quality rather than purely non selective geographically and it doesn't always add up to the same thing, though it tends to.

Friend's dd got 5 A's, 5 A*'s at local comp in Hampshire. That's higher than the average for my dd's grammar

No idea how old you are, Foxton, but it is largely the result of the Greenwich ruling in 1989 which meant that local authorities could no longer reserve places in their schools for their own residents. It meant that selective schools in selective areas were now available to to pupils from adjacent non-selective areas which resulted in a significant surge in demand. This really only affected schools in urban areas like the outer London boroughs. It did not so much affect selective areas like Kent or Lincolnshire, most of whose schools were only accessible to children living in those areas.

@Yellowtip Yes it did apply when grammars were universal. At least in some places. For example, in North London, top scoring boys were offered places at QE Boys Barnet whether or not they actually lived in Barnet. DH was the only boy in his (not Barnet but on the borders) primary school 'sent' there - it was all done on score.

It depends when you were young Foxton, because clearly it didn't apply when grammars were universal.

Carbonel the system is fallible, but definitely not 'as fallible as it can be'. The HTs don't run a lottery and on the whole with a few exceptions the right children get in.

Just out of interest, when did the concept of 'superselective' schools first come about? And how? I don't remember anything about them when I was younger, but maybe I just didn't move in the right circles then...

My DD has just passed and she is by no means a genius. Just a fab, bright, sparky girl who has lots of interests and works hard (at what she likes )

A lot depends on how they do on the day and the system is about as fallible as it can be so why not have a go?

Well said breadandbutterfy

Great post breadandbutterfly

breadandbutterfly the voice of reason

I think the whole genius/non-genius, heavily-tutored etc conversations are just a scam to get lots of tutors in business, I really do. It plays on our insecurities as parents and encourages the more gullible amongst us to part with lots of money for teaching kids very basic skills that they should be learning at any primary school and that any normal parent could easily cover if they haven't anyway.

I think the main reason kids fail these tests is because their parents are frightened into believing that 'the' tutor is some kind of semi-magical figure who will get their kids into any school, and the more expensive they are, the better the magic will work!

The truth is that there is no secret formula and the kids are brightish, yes, but not geniuses. If your kid is on the top table, it's worth them having a go - but speed and accuracy rather than genius are the real skills being tested here, not genius level maths or anything. Slow reading but bright kids may not pass - doesn't mean they are not bright; 11+ exams do not really test for genius, and a child who is exceptionally bright in ways not tested by the exams may still fail - eg higher-level analytical skills are not really tested until A level or beyond, in most cases, but strong analytical abilities are arguably a better demonstration of intelligence than the ability to get simple maths problems correct, say. Likewise, great creative gifts will not be recognised. Dyslexic kids may fail because of the accuracy/speed factor but be way above in understanding of the topics etc etc etc.

The system for picking kids at 11 is highly fallible; if your dc passes then great, but don't assume they are a genius or are competong with geniuses on a daily basis. If they fail, they can get an excellent education in the top stream of comps and do not assume - or let them assume - that they are failures in any way. There is more than one way to achieve and 11+ only measures a very narrow range of them, and that not always perfectly, as it depends on performance in a single set of exams on a single day.

I agree, it depends where you live, one of the best selectives in our area has over 1000 applicants for 150 places and they also select on music ability as well as the exam results.
Still, if you think your child is bright and able, there is no harm in trying for a grammar school, a lot of children are heavily tutored for these exams but dd1 is at DOA and was not tutored at all, just practice papers at home and ds1 is at latymer, again not tutored and doesn't play a musical instrument!

You can buy the 11+ practice papers, why not try them out at home and see how you get on, it will give you some idea of where your child is at, maybe you could do some outside tutoring to prepare?

I think it depends on which school - some SSs are superSS. I live in north London and my DS did not get into the nearest SS. 6 from his school applied (including him), all "very able", some with sibs at the school, some heavily tutored since year 3. Only one got through the first round and none got a place. At least I wasn't one of the parents who shelled out £thousands on tutoring! [Though of course one could argue - and the other kids did - how inately bright the heavily tutored ones would have been without the tutoring....]. All will end up going to the local schools anyway...

I think the term genius is being used very loosely here bread.

I came top in Surrey in the competition for direct grant places of which the top slice of 11+ entrants succeeded (I've got a certificate to prove it :), which my proud mother kept). And those were the heady days before the perniciousness of tutoring took hold and merit held sway. I'm fairly able, no more.

If my early promise has flowered at all then it's solely through my DC, several of whom are at or have been at the top of their super selective in terms of results. Not a single one of those is a genius, and none would consider him or herself as being exceptionally able. A very tiny number of their friends at school and at university may have the seeds of genius sown, but none of mine.

If a child passes the test, he or she will be fine. Don't worry about it.

No, kids at superselectives are not geniuses - I went to one (came top in English in entrance exam) and I'm not remotely genius-like - i just read non-stop and I'm good at exams (accurate, over-sensitive, bit perfectionist). One of my best friends, from school, who got the best first in her subject for 50 years from Cambridge I wouldn't call a genius either - she's v sharp, mentally very active and energetic (and physically too - she has the physical stamina to persevere) with strong intellectualy interests - but not a genius.

Actually, we were among the top few academically at our v popular superselective, and, now I come to think about it, there wasn't anyone I ever met at school who fell into 'genius' category.

Maybe my standards for 'genius' are higher than yours (?) but I actually have met very few people ever who fell into that category. Oxford did have a few.