Are grammar schools better for above average children?

NewFairy Of course it is. However it is unlikely that there will be many of them in any given comp. That's the problem. You can have a top set but it will never work for the outliers - they will still be outliers. That's why grammar schools are needed for them.

"So it is quite possible that some of the children attending super-selectives are part of the same academically distinguished cohort as the Paulines and Paulinas....."

Just to pick up on this point, in areas without Grammar schools, it is also probable that some of the top 5-10% nationally, are also to be found in Comprehensive schools.

Where I live the independents are decidedly inferior to the SSGS. In terms of results. Not in terms of built environment.

Round here it seems that it is rare to turn down a grammar place in favour of an independent place ( not london). In fact several kids I know ( incl my DD2 but in cohorts with all 3 kids) have turned down bursaries at independents in favour of grammar schools.

I agree entirely......

One would have to be deluded to think that the grammars in London can necessarily compete with the most fiercely academic public day schools (or even the boarding ones). However there will undoubtedly be children at the super-selectives who would merit places at these public schools had they applied.

Personally I am totally against public school education and would not consider it for our DCs,whether they were deemed bright enough or not. I am pretty sure there are plenty of other people like me who for ideological reasons would not consider places such as St Paul's or Westminster. So it is quite possible that some of the children attending super-selectives are part of the same academically distinguished cohort as the Paulines and Paulinas.....

Gazz I'm sure the Tiffin and Sutton schools are great but ultimately, while they are incredibly competitive to get into, they don't then find themselves at the top of the tables for GCSEs or A levels. The competition from the many posh schools in London (which offer bursaries galore of course) must have an impact that isn't felt by, for example, CRGS. Or Pates (which my iPad just autocorrected to Pâtés ). But you're right, even in London the SSs probably are coming in at top 10% or lower (higher?) of the available kids because there are so many kids in London. The SS that DD1 attends says consistently that kids in top 25% will be suitable for an education there. Like many parents I believe the reality is that it's a 5-10% school, too - but they don't claim that in the info for prospective parents.

But might you not think that the Pauline or Paulinas (given how fiercely academic they are) would be in the top 0.5%??? And much more likely to have been educated privately all the way thro' so academically pushed from the age of 5, whereas many of the children at superselectives will have come thro' the state school system and not been pushed to achieve their maximum potential (DS most certainly wasn't!).....

DS certainly has boy in his year who was offered a scholarship to Westminster but because of where they live (further out than a London Borough) opted for a grammar school instead...And this boy is SERIOUSLY smart!

Hi, RussiansOnTheSpree!

DS, as reported upthread, didn't have a particularly sparkling report but he specifically reported back that his form tutor had told him he was still in the top 5% of pupils on the Country! That is not the type of thing that DS would have absorbed anywhere else.....

Gazz they don't claim that though (I agree it's probably true). Ultimately, catchment area or no catchment area, geography and transport links will play a role. If you're a very brainy kid in south west London with wealthy parents, you are more likely to end up a Pauline or Paulina than at Tiffins. So how superselective is Tiffins really? Actually, since one if the Tiffins schools has introduced a sort if catchment area, I guess it can't properly be described as a SS anymore anyway.

Superselectives also tend to cream off the top 5 - 10% rather than the top 20% that other grammars do

A superselective has no catchment area.

LadyTaylor- how are the secondary moderns?

argymargy a superselective is one that ranks students in order and fills from the top of the list down. The " pass mark" ie the mark at or above which kids are admitted varies year on year depending on the cohort .

"standard" grammar schools set a % mark above which kids get in I understand.

Wonderful grammar schools in Northern Ireland, achieving top results!

Given the standard developmental differences, no, the adjustment would be fair: autumn baby needs to score higher, since it should. That's not hard to compute.

"And young in the school year is piffle. The adjustment is enough to make the marking fair but certainly not enough to make a summer born baby pass or an autumn born baby fail."

How does this work? One mark can mean the difference between passing or failing. So a summer born could get through on a score where an autumn born wouldn't.

What is a super selective school please?

I've just tried to find some- and haven't, on a first search, been able to. It certainly doesn't apply in the bit of Kent I live in, where the gender balance of the pass rate reflects the gender balance of the people who take the test.

The research is out there for sure but I've never had the need to have it to hand. I'm happy to accept it as fact, given those who've told me it as fact.

And young in the school year is piffle. The adjustment is enough to make the marking fair but certainly not enough to make a summer born baby pass or an autumn born baby fail.

Well,bid it's that well known, there'll be loads of solid research you can link to, surely?

On the whole boys do mature later curlew.

Link to what? It's well known. It forms part of the re-think about the 11+ tests.

No- if there are no grammar schools they are all in the top sets of the comprehensive.

fairdene
link please