Could any child get into SW London Grammars with tutoring?

Those were studies into academic attainment and difference between single sex schools - which there have been many studies.

But the area you were talking about - very few studies have been done - as it said in the abstract of that study you shared. And again the research is correlational so we are unable to infer cause - other factors could be involved as you have said should as family life etc.

"elite (e.g. top ten) private school is harder to get into" - it is just perception or false economy, if you judge by applicant to offer ratios.

@RedFluffyPanda

I think a lot of parents that had their kids applied grammar simply didn't even think about private options (economy is one of the consideration) . If similar focus effort is taken they will excel in those top private school entrance exams, and the intake (without financial consideration) for those elite schools will be very different vs now.

I personally like single sex less. The fact that there are almost no new single sex schools opening (Islamic schools a possible exception) and almost no co-ed schools moving to single sex suggests that I'm in a majority. But the persistent popularity of a modest number of single sex schools shows that plenty of people disagree.

@LondonMum20222 no DD is going to private, why would one choose a school simply because level of difficulty?

I put the link above to many studies. This widely studied subject. Pick more suitable studies.

Ages ago my sister attended only girls' school. It impacted her and most of the girls at her school. Shy around the boys.
I was attending 95% girls class- it wasn't a healthy balance
Of course, it all depends if they have male siblings and if the school has close relations with the opposite-sex school

But for me, this is a major issue with many private and grammar schools. School is not only about educational achievement but about a lot more. The social aspect is one of those. I find the single-sex schooling something very antiquated and vastly abandoned by many countries

I wouldn't think be much in it, personally. the average grammar is harder to get onto than the average private school, but a really elite (e.g. top ten) private school is harder to get into than an average grammar, certainly... I can't think there'd be much difference between a top ten private school and a top ten SS grammar. the tests and passmarks are quite different.

If you read the abstract it says this..."Skeptics of single-sex schooling have suggested that such schooling may increase students’ gender salience (awareness of gender in categorizations), reduce opportunities for mixed-gender interactions, and increase mixed-gender anxiety, but little evidence has been found."

Which was my point.. this is one study. I bet if I could be bothered I could find evidence that this is true of some children in mixed sex school.

It is one study and it is correlational and you can't infer cause here.

I agree that the grammar school entry test it is about speed and accuracy and the knowledge of year 6 too.

For independent schools, it is more complex. Non-verbal reasoning doesn't exist in the state primary program and verbal reasoning has some aspects that are also beyond the program: the letter sequences, and some aspects of math.

"SPGS maths paper isn't hard." Funniest (or just most absurd) statement I've ever read on here. 😂

@PreplexJ Given your rather relentless insistence on this thread that grammars are so much harder to get into than indies, we'll just all assume your DD is going to a grammar school. But you've been noticeably tight-lipped about where your DD is going in Sept despite being a very vocal poster on all the 11+ threads this year. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate?

if your DD's school had covered everything they were going to cover by Jan, and were just doing revision by then, surely she had done all the Y5 and Y6 curriculum? Unless the school were failing to teach everything in the NC.

Got it. She went to a fairly low-achieving primary school with significant numbers of SEN and EAL in the class. They did not cover the whole of the NC. They were just focused on getting as many people as possible to the expected standard (understandably). And PreplexJ is right - the questions are often solvable with the application of simpler maths and some logic (I'm guessing they probably quite like this if they see it).

Gender: Male Female

Tiffin Boys ( Male), Tiffin Girls ( Female), Nonsuch Girls ( Female) etc

I know many people who completed single sex, gender school and have been shy for some time after school towards opposite sex.

It is not like everybody has vast social life after school

Also, there is a lot of scientific evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6286141/

For some maths questions in those top private school exams (SPGS maths paper isn't hard) , a lot of them are perceived as beyond curriculum questions, but actually can be solved with lower level math knowledge with some tweaks - this is similar to IMO or PMC etc. However, if covered a higher level curriculum knowledge, solving those become easier especially under time constraints because those students has more tools in their arsenal.

For grammar schools maths, speed and accuracy is key so practice is important not just knowing the content - state school won't initiate many practices until SAT months.

plenty of scientific research is already in place?
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=single+sex+schools+impact+on+social&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

@BonjourCrisette I think we're broadly saying the same thing, just from different angles. Your DD did well enough to get a spot in spite of not having covered the full maths curriculum. But the fact remains that the SPGS exam does go well beyond the Y5 (and indeed Y6) curriculum. That doesn't mean that girls can't get in without having covered all that material. But the exam isn't based on the Y5 curriculum.

Also, if your DD's school had covered everything they were going to cover by Jan, and were just doing revision by then, surely she had done all the Y5 and Y6 curriculum? Unless the school were failing to teach everything in the NC.

Agree and one can not underestimate the efforts takes to mark thousands of open format papers, for grammar the entrance is free so given the number of applicants most of the London grammar school has to use multiple choice to significant reduce the number of bright DCs into second round to properly assess the ability in a different form.

@LondonMum20222 No, my point was that DD had not covered some stuff in the Y5/6 curriculum and still did well enough to get a place. I am pretty sure she hadn't covered anything at all more advanced than that. These exams were January and by then her primary had basically taught everything they were going to teach and were focusing on revision. You are right that she would have done much better on the English and Comprehension papers.

yeah, i mean the state grammars have [broadly speaking] just the same amount of funding per head as the comprehensives, any significant resource that they were to invest in revamping the tests would have to come out of another budget somewhere else in the school, they now have a test that broadly works, it'd be a brave headteacher indeed who were to chance his or her arm on a risky new 'fairer' alternative in the name of inclusion. getting more pupil premium kids would bring in an extra grand a year per head, which isn't to be sneezed at, but the downside risks might be considered greater. no small number of upper middle class parents might bring in more than that through their involvement in fundraising events and so on.

and the financial model/existence of the private schools will of course always depend on the overwhelming majority of kids paying full fees, that's obviously a non trivial consideration.

@BonjourCrisette So that goes to my other point that perhaps the pass rate for that third maths paper is very low (I've heard 40% quoted on here) and they make it hard purely to identify that small handful of genuinely stand-out students (while some others, who manage to have a good stab at it, still get a place, or perhaps that place is awarded because they excelled in the English paper or the Comprehension paper - we'll never know...)

But the broader point - which you seem to be substantiating, given there were aspects of maths your DD hadn't covered at school - is that they're not Y5 curriculum papers.

you only need to look at the sample maths papers to see that those aren't Y5 national curriculum papers (esp the third one). Maybe those kids getting offers with no additional tutoring beyond exam technique really are geniuses.

DD, who got an offer with a bit of tutoring, is not a genius and is in the lowest set for Maths. She did not finish the Maths paper when she took the exam and had not even covered some of the primary national curriculum (ratios in particular is the one I remember but I think there may have been other things too). She found the Tiffin Maths paper much much easier and did finish it.

there are a lot of learned skills being tested there, some sections more than others. like e.g. of the recent c two thirds of the Oxbridge intake who were state educated, most of those comprehensive educated, I'd be astonished if more than a handful of the 10 year old versions of those kids would have been able to pass a test like that.

I'd be astonished if someone clever enough to end up at Oxbridge wouldn't have been able to make a decent stab at that paper - the main barrier is probably psychological rather than to do with the difficulty. I think it is fun for the type of child they are looking for (probably fairly similar to the type of young person Oxbridge is looking for). I also think that as long as you don't get scared it is perfectly possible to answer this type of thing based purely on being logical and having decent comprehension skills.

@puffyisgood out of thinking question or sth similar, will make the selection more bias. I don't bevelive at age 10 level, a general purpose untutorable exam exist.

But again, all these schools have strong interest to take on students that can achieve good result at GCSE and A Levels, which also required strength of prep as key skills (and party involvement too) , I can see why they all happy to just use existing format.

Probably the single most useful thing you could do to make a test prep proof and a test of raw ability would be to change the content and format drastically every year. But that would also bring about many downsides such as starting to become very expensive to administer, to pitch at the right level, to generally make 'fair', and so on.

You might really try thinking out of the box, e.g. one year devote quite a bit of effort to testing reaction times [which are generally quite well correlated with intelligence, though only to a point - e.g. a mongoose might well ace certain formulations of such tests but i daresay perform less well in A level further maths], another year testing memory [e.g. remembering sequences of colours or objects], another year focus on getting to grips with made up languages, yet another year getting kids to from scratch learn & win at an obscure, very tactical, board game [e.g. mahjong equivalents], and so on.

But I'm not really sure where the drive for real tutor proof-ness would come from - Ofsted? prospective parents? local residents? school governors? The status quo , whereby strength of prep is key, seems to suit most of the involved parties quite well.

@SamPoodle123 Both consortium and SPGS type of test, there are bespoken tutoring course, and you can guess how many West London prep students, whose parents specific target (obsessed) for SPGS school etc from age 4/7, will do it to maximize the chance.

I agree there is no need for those paid tutor really. If the child have time to practice those exam Questions with some help from parent, their chance will definitely to be higher, but again this will take time and effort.

And compared to some other Grammar 11+ test I have seen, these question are easier in the sense that I think myself can do well in these type of test unprepared, I also belive my colleagues, who failed miserably in the NVR test, will be OK at these kind of test even without prep. But still I'm not comfortable all we can be better than a bright 10 year old kids with proper preparation.

But again, the tests, as well as VR or NVR are just identifying certain type of thinking, for a 10 year old with tutor and practice will improve the chance. The difficulty or style of the paper has little correlation on the difficulty of actual getting the offer from the school. For the same level ability, with similar level of prep, the actual reliable difficulty level is application to offers ratio (note not application to admission).

Hence, in general London super selective grammar is harder than top selective private.If the entire cohort of the grammar students, stay to prepare and take the private 11+ exams, a lot of them will probably do better too.

not "most ten year olds", sure, but there are a lot of learned skills being tested there, some sections more than others. like e.g. of the recent c two thirds of the Oxbridge intake who were state educated, most of those comprehensive educated, I'd be astonished if more than a handful of the 10 year old versions of those kids would have been able to pass a test like that.

On the subject of curriculum (and how much children need to cover) every indie school head I've heard speak (who has stressed that there's no need to tutor, as they all do) has said that the exam will be "based on the Y5 curriculum with opportunities for stretch for the most able pupils." I don't think anyone need do lots of 11+ inference papers to read between the lines there.

I know SPGS is in a slightly different league, but you only need to look at the sample maths papers to see that those aren't Y5 national curriculum papers (esp the third one). Maybe those kids getting offers with no additional tutoring beyond exam technique really are geniuses. Maybe the pass mark is very low, and they just make the paper hard so to identify a handful of stellar students to give High Mistress awards to. But it's not a Y5 curriculum paper, and with maths, if you have never seen an algebraic equation before, even a bright student isn't instinctively going to know how to tackle it.

And from everything I've ever read on here, the Tiffins maths paper is notoriously difficult so I find it hard to believe that it doesn't go beyond the Y5 curriculum.

I agree @BonjourCrisette that the SPGS Comprehension paper is probably the best I've seen in terms of being tutor-proof - it suits girls with strong processing skills, ability to absorb and analyse a lot of information, and make unexpected connections as well as testing for logic and often elements of spatial awareness and codes. Either a child has that kind of brain or they don't. Of course you can always improve on exam technique / speed that's useful for all exams but I think that one probably is very revealing for them.

The Consortium exam I'm less enamoured with from the familiarisation materials - as one teacher said to us, to what level are you really testing creative thinking and analysis when it's multiple choice? Also, it's so short - 15 mins is very little.