Are superselectives for the very able or only for geniuses?

exactly the intake is super but what happens in many of the so called super selectives is not - teachers are riding on the wave of the long travelled intake not the intake riding on the outstanding teaching that all students should expect. Whose interest are the superselctives really serving?

I have a child at a superselective,(pooka, think I am in your area) again able but not genius. There are a few children in each year that are gifted but the majority I think are very able.

Superselectives to tend to get very good results

I do agree with toomany, the children at the school are for the most part well motivated and there is less behavioral difficulties than seen in the local comps my other children attend. I think this means that they are easier to teach at and the children can work at a faster pace.

It is obvious that the job for teachers in these super selective grammars is much easier that that of a teacher in an inner city secondary school. I don't agree though that "superselectives" are not "super sports" or "super music" etc. the highly motivated, academically able children tend to excel in many areas such as sport and music. This should reflect in the school orchestra, sports teams etc

DD1 is at a superselective and is very able but certainly not a genius. She is very happy there and we are happy with it.

Haven't got a clue what jumjum means by superselectives being 'for the benefit of the Headteacher and staff' . The term 'superselective' merely denotes a grammar school which is not in a grammar school area such as Kent and therefore has no catchment area, so is likely to have more applicants per place.

Though a misleading term, superselectives do on the whole have the best results, but no superselective anywhere in the country would claim to cater only for geniuses. That would be absurd. They are for the relatively able to the very able and occasionally you might find a genius I suppose.

Superselectives are for the benefits of the headteacher and the staff not the students. How could you think otherwise? Interesting but accurate that they are know as superselectives not super results nor super music nor super sport nor super happines but just superselcectives - super an admissions process not super teaching

My local one has 8500+ applications for 180 places.

We're not in a grammar area but have comprehensives and then two single sex superselectives with no catchment as such - admission purely on ability.

The end result is that any child taking the test tends to have been tutored and many come from private preps, which puts many other children from poorer families at a disadvantage.

At least the superselectives we have don't result in the same level of top-slicing that happens in full grammar areas. Though the Council are considering allowing the existing ones to set up 'satellites' which will have an appalling impact on local secondaries.

My dd is very able - top of top sets and ahead of expectations. But I still think that her chances of getting into the ss schools are very very slim. If she tried the adjacent authority grammar tests, success is more likely statistically. I don't want her to be tutored really. The whole set up makes me sad.

However.... at least most of the local comprehensives have a strong & able intake as a result of the competition from the SS schools.

My DD passed the test easily and was well over the cut off for 3 super selective grammars. She is a bright, hardworking girl but not a genius. 4 boys from her school also got super selective grammars and they are not geniuses either.