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

@Araminta1003 My post was not about screen time but equal opportunities for all of the children regardless of their parents' attitude. This is not possible at the age of 10. A child aged 10 has no maturity yet to decide for himself/herself what opportunities are there or what it even means to choose that school or this school.
In my home country we were 14 when we took the exams. Still, my parents preferred for me to go to a local school (they didn't know how to play chess, just a typical family from a small town/village). But at 14 I had this ambition and enough maturity to decide for myself at that age to try exams in a neighbouring city and I got in. So no, an average European family would not play chess or Sudoku. My sister's kids spend whole days glued to Xbox (they got 1 device each). They play football on the weekends. My grandparents spend time working in their garden or in a church. Nobody ever spent any time with me playing mind games, doing crosswords, etc. and I don't know anybody who did that. Because nobody had time. They worked hard full time whole day in the office and when they came home they had to work in the garden to grow the vegetables and put the food on the table. Likewise, my sister works full time and is knackered when she gets back home. My BIL is in the army and is rarely at home. When he gets home, he goes to his farm and works hard there. Kids go to both grandparents' houses when parents work. They don't play board games. So I'm surprised you think this would be normal in Europe. Perhaps in cities, upper middle class folk. Maybe 10% of the society.

Yes it is "evolving" but the worry is that it is taking out the highest achieving without catching up from the bottom.

Recent SEN talks have understood smaller class sizes in schools are important - just as private schools have been saying all along. You can't have private school facilities and teaching without more investment in education. Why won't the gov pay what they should to educate all kids equally to the same high standard as private schools, rather that pulling apart what works and leaving the rubble?

I can see both sides here - in a grammar area which means the surrounding schools are full of kids who believe they failed academically by 11. As a teacher it is very hard to re-engage these kids, who see others who had the money to be tutored but were not as intrinsically bright in primary, getting a leg-up. It's worse in many ways than the private cohort because at least the parents are not forcing kids to take places from actually bright children then struggle and pay for tutoring to keep up. Creating sink schools and a wave of kids disenchanted with learning from 11 is a terrible way to educate kids in certain parts of the country. Pretending the kids who can afford years of tutoring are different to private school kids is champagne socialism at it's worst. We all know this is a huge issue with these schools yet parents push to keep them so their kids don't have to mix with others or they would have to pay for private.

British education has been designed to segregate classes and it will remain the same as our state system is not changing

The landscape has changed significantly. Most grammar schools were abolished 30 years ago, and more closures are likely to follow. With the introduction of private school VAT and other changes, it’s clear the educational system is evolving. Just look at how the world is shifting

@carcassonne1 - my DS would not want to spend hours on TikTok or Xbox or playing football. He would want to do his music practice first and foremost and he would want to read books and newspapers and discuss political and current issues. He will play some football at school and do some Xbox but given a choice, it would not be his go to. It bores him. He is thirsty for learning facts and finding out how the world works and perfecting his music and watching performers he admires. It is what interests him more. I do not think it is what I shaped. As one of my DDs is quite different in her interests.

What I meant is that there is little evidence to suggest that grammar schools or the 11+ exam significantly improve a child's development, all else being equal.

You seem to want to believe that your boys are not typical, standard children. Fine, yours are special.

Of course British education has been designed to segregate classes and it will remain the same as our state system is not changing. Of course it is purposefully unfair. Those from lower classes who want to escape are forced to jump through the hoops taking blows from right, left and centre, that's how the great British elite selects the most fit for taking managerial roles. It's ruthless but you're a foreigner, you can escape it via a different route.

“These methods are likely not as effective or beneficial as you might believe.”

@Dtnews - what do you mean by that? I just want my kid to be happy and have friends he can bond with. Like most parents. These types of boys love to discuss things at break time which are not typical for the standard child.

Apparently they don't 🤷‍♀️ Have you heard that 30-40% cannot pass GCSE English?

But I was just pointing out to the simple fact that human beings have to do lots of "unnatural" things. You seem to have a problem with chess and music - well, reading and writing is in the same category for not being natural and bloody hard to learn, why are they OK for you?

@carcassonne1 - Football and Xbox are fine, but I would never allow my children to have unlimited access to the internet, it is dangerous. Pretty much all my friends are waking up to the harms of the internet now. I think during Covid we all just got too lax with children in that regard, because we had to work and it seemed to be a necessity.

We all grew up with piano lessons and singing in church and chess and books and crosswords and our parents reading to us. My DC still have some of my own childhood books and those of their grandparents.
But there is and never was some gruelling sort of regime. We are a musical family and all played scrabble and chess and even some bridge with our own parents. In fact, their grandparent introduced my kids to Suduko, as fun.

Is it any different in other countries? France, Germany, Spain etc.? How do you engage the parents educationally who don’t really want to? I think controlling the screen exposure of children is probably more important than grammar school access. Would you agree?

They don't teach reading at a state school?
My post was about equal opportunities and what it takes to shape a child who would have a chance to crack on grammar school exams.

Of course there are many many other equally bright kids in state comprehensives all over the country. London is a big City though with millions of children so people who know their DCs are bright and can access these schools will go for it. Sometimes even if they themselves do not really like the concept of it.

That reinforces the earlier point: many students in grammar schools are not in the top 5-10% of the population in terms of raw ability, even though you seem inclined to believe they are. Many other bright children, and particularly their parents, dislike the concept of 11+ tutoring or the idea of grammar schools themselves, so they choose not to participate. Many of these children thrive in whichever schools they attend.

London is a large city, but as some have pointed out earlier, grammar schools in London often show a concentration of specific ethnic groups. This choice appears to be influenced more by selfselect cultural factors than by a purely widespread natural intellectual basis.

The criticism here is more about principles and beliefs, rather than your simplistic thinking along the lines of, "Oh, they do not participate, so they must be jealous."

Nobody is offended by the idea of academic success, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the path to achieving is the 11+ exams or grammar schools. These methods are likely not as effective or beneficial as you might believe.

Reading is not a natural activity a child would choose to do either. Many parents don't force their children into such unnatural pursuits.

Sudoku, chess, gruelling daily and costly piano/violin lessons since toddler years... all these are not natural child activities that a child would naturally choose to do at a young age. It takes at least one stay at home/working part time and very engaged and determined adult with a lot of spare time to enforce all of these. I think it's fair to say this would not be possible with 2 parents working full time and a child at nursery/after school club till late hours, so typical setup in Europe. You would need a SAHP or a prep school. So again we are talking about people who are privileged in some way and/or child-oriented perfectionism (which probably is not good for kids in a long run).

There are a few very clever, independent and quite mature boys in my son's class. If given equal opportunities at state school (VR classes, reasonable standard of maths) they perhaps would have a chance to crack on the grammar school exams. Alas, they live at a council estate with parents who have no clue and would never ever manage to solve the 11+ math questions themselves. They spend whole days doing what most of the kids their age would are doing here - play football and Xbox and spend long hours on TikTok. I'm genuinely sorry for them. Kids should not lose out because of their parents. Everybody should have equal chances. The system is flawed.

@Dtnews - I really do not understand what your problem is.
Of course there are many many other equally bright kids in state comprehensives all over the country. London is a big City though with millions of children so people who know their DCs are bright and can access these schools will go for it. Sometimes even if they themselves do not really like the concept of it.

I explained to you why - boys like this tend to thrive with other boys socially who have similar interests. And I do understand why other people who do not get access to these types of schools for free may get jealous. Because they also know that their own DCs would have enjoyed that and thrived there.

Nobody gets offended when some kids go to an Academy football club and the parents discover their kids innate running and dribbling skills at an early age. However, dare to do it with academics, then somehow it is a problem.

I never suggested they don’t deserve their place. I simply pointed out that there are many other bright children who don’t take these spots or don’t join these schools in the first place.

Moreover, their CAT scores are inflated, making it extremely difficult to extract raw ability quantities. Most of them are heavily tutored to gain admission.

Most of them aren’t inflated. I taught these kids. It’s really mean to suggest they don’t deserve their places. They’re very, very bright kids and they do.

None of them tutored for years. Yes, the parents could have tutored for years and years, but the outcome would have been the same.

Schools like QE, St. Olave’s typically see students tutored for two years in preparation for the 11+. Tutoring is also common for GCSEs and A-levels for these students. What you’ve described no tutoring is not the norm. Tutoring cannot alter innate ability, it can enhance academic progress and improve exam scores. Otherwise, why would some people invest in it? It’s clearly more than just a matter of behavior.

Your argument contains logical fallacies and demonstrates a preference for biased information that supports your beliefs.

Also I find your argument inconsistent: it jumps from tutoring to innate abilities, Oxbridge, music, chess, and Sudoku. It seems like you are attempting to justify the belief that your sons or someone else in the school is part of the born top 5-10% intelligence in the population and should therefore be treated differently.

The truth is, while some individuals may fall into that category, many do not. What we see on paper result is more often the added product of some innate ability (more like 25%), more importantly family resources, privilege, plus rat race ideology, which may or may not ultimately prove beneficial overall.

There’s no point in continuing this argument in this thread; next time, you’ll just shift to other random points.

@Dtnews - not true for the ones we actually know and have known over many years.
In any event, it is a logical fallacy.

Take a family with a very bright boy but who believes they must still tutor their child for 2 years and pay out thousands in tuition “because everyone else does it”. Does not mean they had to do that in the first place. That is behavioural.

DS has lots of friends who are musically gifted. Think multiple Grade 8 standard age 10/11. Quite a few of them just gave it a go and did get in, some friends who are really good at chess or art etc as well. All very able boys. None of them tutored for years. Yes, the parents could have tutored for years and years, but the outcome would have been the same.
Many of these boys will do things like Sudoku for fun, read complex books way beyond their years. Academically gifted boys, the lot of them. Whatever that means. There is a degree of it and none of them are geniuses.

There are loads of the types of kids in these types of schools.

The inflated CAT scores are the result of years of tutoring. It is nearly impossible to find the raw CAT scores of these students because they begin tutoring from a very early stage.

You're right, they don’t, and I have seen their CAT scores.

You cannot line up all the kids in the country and send 3 out of 10 to these schools with the “right” parents and then end up with Firsts at Oxbridge

You are deliberately trying to mix concepts, but your point is invalid. The Oxbridge first rate is only around 20% of all students. I also know that school like QE has students who do not meet admission conditions or end up achieving a third at Oxbridge. 7% of private school students account for 40% of Oxbridge admissions. Do you truly believe that this 7% is purely about innate ability, with no connection to resources or right family background?

@Dtnews - the group of boys at both Westminster and QE who end up at Oxbridge tend to perform very well there too. There are figures on this.
These boys were always in the highest cognitive ability percentiles. Definitely not top 30% only.
You cannot line up all the kids in the country and send 3 out of 10 to these schools with the “right” parents and then end up with Firsts at Oxbridge. It’s far more like 1 out of 10, often 1 out of 100.

I don’t live in Birmingham, we’re Black Country. The grammar she’s going isn’t in B’ham. She did get a fantastic score and could have got in to a B’ham grammar, but we’ve got an excellent grammar closer to us (20 ish mins away) than going into B’ham everyday, which would be a pain in the arse.

Does it seem surprising? If a school like Westminster has a 50% Oxbridge success rate among its students, this applies to a subset of students already in the top 30% of intrinsic ability across the population (based on the assumption).

If every student at Westminster were to apply to Oxbridge, this 50% success rate would translate to 15% of the original overall intrinsic ability pool.
This success rate is already boosted substantially by the highest tuition fees, extensive school resources, and strong family backing you can get in this country.

Oxbridge Success Rates at the overall 13%-16% acceptance rate, the applicants likely represent a highly capable, yet self select subset of the population, one can roughly align with the top 10% of the intrinsically academic capable as well as best-prepared students with the resources