Candidates flying from overseas to sit super-selective grammar 11+

Don't be ridiculous, the country aims to pivot its public resources towards war which will syphon all resources not just from state schools and disabled people but pretty much everything else too, don't you worry.

I report you on this too

@Ubertomusic

As most grammar schools (excluding QE boys) have a specific catchment area, the fact that their pupil demographics do not reflect the overall population in that catchment area is itself a real cause for concern.

This means that the selection process is producing adverse results i.e. it is not longer selecting "natural ability" and instead selecting for a specific ethno-socio-economic segement of the population.

This has deterimental social effects for the pupils selected, because they have to be educated and socially mature in an environment that is not reflective of their local community. They are essentially artifically segregated from the local (and much more diverse) community in which they live in.

It's a very typical "survival of the fittest" selection

In short, the rat race, this is very different from the ideology the country aims to pivot its public resources towards, which has led to significant criticism.

The comprehensive education system in this country is catchment based. It is not open to all or fair, by any means. Many people with some money either buy or rent in the catchment of the best schools or decide to move an affluent area with a generally privileged demographic. Educational attainment as argued above is linked to socio economic privilege.

Comparing superselective grammar schools to the directly neighbouring comprehensives does not work either. The whole point of the superselective grammar schools is that there is no catchment, they tend to be on train lines, kids travel in from all sorts of areas. There is no way of directly comparing their exact local secondary and the FSM rate there either. You would have to collect the data for each child depending on their home address. Most grammar school parents with academically able kids are not there to avoid FSM rates in local schools. They are there for a peer group for their child and teaching at their pace and subject choices for that type of kid e.g Latin, Further Maths, Robotics club

@bluegoosie

Comparing IQ Tests and the 11+
You’re absolutely right that IQ tests and 11+ exams are not directly comparable. However, this actually strengthens the argument against grammar school selection.
IQ tests, despite their flaws, are standardized, rigorously tested for reliability and validity, and have undergone multiple revisions to reduce cultural and social bias.
Grammar school tests, in contrast, lack transparency. There is no universal test, methodologies are opaque, and there is no strong scientific validation of how well they measure "innate ability" rather than test preparation, coaching, and socio-economic background.
The lack of clear data on test construction and validity means we cannot assume they are a fair way to identify "natural ability."
If they are not reliably selecting for innate intelligence, then what justification exists for using them to divide children at age 11?

This I can totally agree with, but as I said before the justification of the whole system is the selection of what used to be "colonial administration", now with the absence of the empire being used for domestic purposes. They're reasonably bright but what is much more important they (and their parents) are willing and able to fight for their way up.
It's a very typical "survival of the fittest" selection.

HBS for example is predominantly S Asian whilst the neighbourhood is predominantly Jewish (both affluent and poor) and other white and mixed race British. The proportion of S Asian children in comp schools around the school is much much lower hence the data is skewed.

Why is that though? What is the problem here? Is it not a systematic selection bias?

Yes, one of them, who himself admits that grammar schools are not a good idea and advocates for comprehensive education.

@bluegoosie

FSM Data and Cultural Stigma
It’s true that FSM eligibility statistics may underrepresent the actual number of disadvantaged students, as some families choose not to apply due to stigma. However, this limitation applies equally across all school types, meaning it does not explain why FSM eligibility is consistently lower in grammar schools than in non-selective schools in the neighbouring areas.The fact remains that grammar schools enroll a disproportionately small percentage of FSM-eligible students compared to comprehensive schools, which indicates a systematic selection bias—not just issues with data collection.

Neighbouring areas often have entirely different demographics hence comprehensive schools intake is more diverse ethnically and culturally. HBS for example is predominantly S Asian whilst the neighbourhood is predominantly Jewish (both affluent and poor) and other white and mixed race British. The proportion of S Asian children in comp schools around the school is much much lower hence the data is skewed.

There are much more nuances to the stats.

Describe a phenomenon with concrete evidence that you interpret as a problem. Oh, I need to report you for this.

@Ubertomusic

FSM Data and Cultural Stigma
It’s true that FSM eligibility statistics may underrepresent the actual number of disadvantaged students, as some families choose not to apply due to stigma. However, this limitation applies equally across all school types, meaning it does not explain why FSM eligibility is consistently lower in grammar schools than in non-selective schools in the neighbouring areas.The fact remains that grammar schools enroll a disproportionately small percentage of FSM-eligible students compared to comprehensive schools, which indicates a systematic selection bias—not just issues with data collection.

Comparing IQ Tests and the 11+
You’re absolutely right that IQ tests and 11+ exams are not directly comparable. However, this actually strengthens the argument against grammar school selection.
IQ tests, despite their flaws, are standardized, rigorously tested for reliability and validity, and have undergone multiple revisions to reduce cultural and social bias.

Grammar school tests, in contrast, lack transparency. There is no universal test, methodologies are opaque, and there is no strong scientific validation of how well they measure "innate ability" rather than test preparation, coaching, and socio-economic background.

The lack of clear data on test construction and validity means we cannot assume they are a fair way to identify "natural ability."

If they are not reliably selecting for innate intelligence, then what justification exists for using them to divide children at age 11?

IQ Heritability and Twin Studies

Research into IQ heritability is not inconclusive; rather, it is extensive and complex, with many studies showing that IQ is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Twin and adoption studies have provided some of the most robust evidence for estimating the genetic component of intelligence. However, even these studies acknowledge that environment plays a significant role, especially in childhood. This underscores the point that intelligence is not fixed and that early educational advantages (such as tutoring and test preparation) can significantly impact outcomes.

What Do Grammar Schools Actually Select For?

The reality is that grammar school admissions favor those who are already advantaged, making the process a filter for economic advantage rather than cognitive potential.

Even if we accept that some children from lower-income backgrounds do gain access to grammar schools, the system as a whole still functions in a way that reinforces educational inequality.

Should taxpayer-funded education be structured in a way that exacerbates inequality, or should we be focusing on making high-quality education accessible to all children, regardless of background?

I get it. Welfare cuts, private school VAT about to fail, of course it’s time to attack the grammar schools and the kids in them. Nothing much else left to do really.

Have you heard about how many grammar schools were converted to private schools 30 years ago? Ignorance truly is bliss

@Dtnews - do you mean the one the Prime Minister went to?

Hello @CurlewKate ? 🙂 Do the shopkeepers count for social mobility or are they privileged in your universe? 😁

Have you heard about how many grammar schools were converted to private schools 30 years ago? Ignorance truly is bliss

Just to add @bluegoosie - pretty much everything in psychometrics is inconclusive, it's not hard science as we cannot experiment on human beings, isolating variables - denying one twin all educational input for example.

But psychometrics is a very British and American obsession, of course.

@Araminta1003

The argument that some comprehensive schools may have a skewed socio-economic intake does not counter the fact that grammar schools are inherently socially selective—it is built into their system of selection. The entrance exam structure, combined with access to private tutoring and preparatory resources, systematically advantages certain families while disproportionately excluding disadvantaged students.

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that grammar schools do not improve social mobility at a societal level. While there are individual success stories, large-scale studies, such as those by the Education Policy Institute (EPI), demonstrate that grammar schools reinforce socio-economic divisions rather than bridge them. The proportion of Free School Meals (FSM) eligible students in grammar schools is around 6-7%, compared to 28-30% in non-selective schools—a clear indicator that grammar schools do not serve disadvantaged students equitably.

Furthermore, the suggestion that non-selective schools also have socio-economic disparities does not address the core issue—grammar schools are designed to be selective, and in practice, their selection criteria favor those with existing educational advantages. This is not a side effect but a structural feature of the system.

Anecdotes about individuals who benefited from grammar schools should not dictate national education policy. State education is publicly funded and should be designed to promote fairness and equal opportunities for all students, rather than disproportionately benefiting those who can afford exam preparation. If grammar schools do not contribute to genuine social mobility, then it is right to question whether public funds should continue to support them.

The real question is: Should we continue to fund a specific system that perpetuates inequality, or should we focus on evidence-based reforms that promote a fairer and more equitable education system for all?

I also agree with @CurlewKate.

I mentioned earlier that my son joined a super selective for sixth form. His grade requirement at GCSE was higher (63 points from top 8) than boys who had joined the school in year 7 (56 points). In fact, due to demand for places, the school were offering on 68-70 predicted points from top 8.

DS was worried that all the incumbent boys would be super bright, high achieving and he would not keep up. Instead he's found that these boys are the minority and that he is perfectly able to keep pace despite "only" having attended the local comprehensive.

He went to primary with a boy who joined the school in year 7 having been tutored for 11+ for 2 years. Now they are at the same school again and DS' friend did no better in his GCSEs than DS did.

The 11+ had 3 papers - maths, English and NVR. Despite there being an English test most of the boys lean toward STEM for A levels with only 12 (out of 150) boys not taking Maths (8 classes) whereas there is only one English Lit A Level class with approx. 15 boys. Rightly or wrongly the impression this gives me is that the 11+ does favour those who are good at maths at 10 years of age.

a stigma in many cultures and not everyone applies.

The recognition of grammar school applicants is, in large part, influenced by certain cultural and demographic factors, as well as family stigma or ideology. Many other cultures and families don’t even consider applying.

“The government should consider imposing a levy or VAT on such choices.”

Have you heard of the legal system, per chance? You can try and come across all academic, but when you make such naive statements, you discredit yourself entirely.

God forbid—of what, exactly? Are grammar schools becoming a holy grail for you now? I’m simply echo a comment by another poster that grammar schools represent a form of social selection and a public resource that is being misused by the middle class in a way that is worse than buying privileges of using private schools. The government should consider imposing a levy or VAT on such choices.

FSM data is misleading as being on free meals is a stigma in many cultures and not everyone applies. My DC was eligible for FSM, we never applied, neither in state sector nor in grammar. Top superselective grammars have a very different ethnic demographic than comprehensive, hence the difference in the stats.

We can't directly compare IQ tests and 11+ because 11+ assessments vary greatly across grammar schools, there is no universal approach. Test providers differ and when I tried to find GL test construction methodology and data, I couldn't find anything. So scientifically speaking, we cannot say much about validity, reliability and other characteristics of the tests (unless you have access to methodology).

Research on IQ tests themselves is inconclusive, too.

@Dtnews - you literally told @Ubertomusic that she can have “privilege” as long as she “pays” for it. So she can pay for private schools or she can pay her way into an expensive catchment as then she has supposedly paid her social dues. But God forbid she has a clever child, how dare she send them to a God forbid FREE grammar school.