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

And don’t forget you have at every juncture been highlighting race and culture yourself. In fact, another posted specifically objected to your comments in this regard

Pointing out factual differences in demographics and culture makes you think there's discrimination in an HR court case? Your comments are a disgrace to the legal system.

Hugely significant based on fake data that has been questioned by other academic above? I could also claim 96% versus 4% FSM, and at least that wouldn’t be fake data.

36 per cent versus 26 per cent is hugely statistically significant. And don’t forget you have at every juncture been highlighting race and culture yourself. In fact, another posted specifically objected to your comments in this regard?
Check mate

Oh, sure, good luck with that argument in court. It's weaker than ever. Even independent schools expensive KC won't bother try this point.

The private school court case IS on human rights grounds including single sex education and religious education. It will absolutely be a precedence for governmental interference. It would have included RACE if they had the figures to prove that more non white children are in independent education than overall.

So if you were to abolish it, you may negatively affect house prices in those areas.

Here’s another random thought: Do you assume that people wouldn’t move in or out of an area if the 5% of grammar schools disappeared?

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/01/15/selective-systems-are-precisely-what-harm-opportunities-for-other-peoples-children-a-further-comment-rejecting-the-hepi-report-on-selective-schooling/

"The point on the data is that the sample is far from representative – it is missing a lot of high earners. This is illustrated by 70% of the sample falling below the national median figure. Even though median income is defined within sample for the analysis, the fact that the dataset is missing a whole chunk of self-employment data makes any stat about the income profile misleading. "

“This is a naïve comparison, given that we know that selective areas are not representative of the nation as a whole. The areas that chose to keep grammar schools have specific characteristics – they are, for example, generally more affluent and have a higher proportion of degree educated people. These are precisely the sorts of characteristics that support access to elite universities, and so we would naturally expect to see more pupils in those regions attending ‘highly selective higher education institutions’. As such, comparing grammar school areas with all other areas will upwardly bias the grammar school effect.”

So there is your evidence that if you were to abolish grammar schools areas those types of people are there for the grammar schools! So if you were to abolish it, you may negatively affect house prices in those areas.

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/01/10/grammar-schools-and-access-to-universities-hepi-report-not-an-accurate-or-complete-picture/

"However, the HEPI report does not mention this severe drawback of the data, and makes no correction for it in the analysis. Rather this questionable finding is repeated numerous times throughout the report.

Our own published analysis of the background of pupils attending grammar schools clearly shows that these schools provide very limited opportunities for pupils from both disadvantaged and ‘ordinary working’ families.

Inappropriate statistical methods

The analysis on progression to higher education compares progression in areas with grammar schools (selective areas) to progression in all non-grammar areas (see Table 2, page 27).

This is a naïve comparison, given that we know that selective areas are not representative of the nation as a whole. The areas that chose to keep grammar schools have specific characteristics – they are, for example, generally more affluent and have a higher proportion of degree educated people. These are precisely the sorts of characteristics that support access to elite universities, and so we would naturally expect to see more pupils in those regions attending ‘highly selective higher education institutions’. As such, comparing grammar school areas with all other areas will upwardly bias the grammar school effect.

Other research has shown that even restricting analysis to grammar areas matched with similar looking non-grammar areas does not solve this bias problem, and so we should expect the naïve comparison in the report to contain a non-trivial upward selection bias. This inappropriate statistical approach means that the report’s conclusion is unlikely to be robust.

As with all policy analysis, it is very important to ensure that appropriate data and robust statistical methodologies are used before drawing conclusions and making policy recommendations. This is particularly the case when the actual aggregate impacts of a policy may in fact be the reverse of what is being claimed."

The private school court case has nothing to do with racial discrimination or minority issues. Once again, you're throwing in your imaginary and random thoughts.

36 per cent non-white vs 26 per cent otherwise is statistically significant. Given children in grammar schools are already a minority, you cannot abolish grammar schools. Would be likely racial discrimination on HR grounds and that paper shows that 45 per cent are not economically advantaged either. Many are also single sex, more potential discrimination.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2019/01/10/grammar-schools-significantly-increase-chances-disadvantaged-pupils-reaching-highly-selective-universities-especially-oxbridge/

And having looked at the race statistics now, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01398/SN01398.pdf
there probably is a HR Act challenge against anyone trying to abolish grammar schools, especially if the private schools win their challenge in April.

So, based on your early criteria, are most teachers' offspring naturally in the top 5–10% intelligence bracket? Or is it more likely that teachers, having their own advantages in tutoring, help their children gain a significant edge? But most likely, could it be that your personal circle of teachers is heavily biased, leading to confirmation bias on your part?

There is statistics to show that demographic of grammar school parents and the demographic of teachers itself is significantly different, that highlights part of the problem!!!

From my experience, many teachers I know choose private or comprehensive schools for their children, and a significant number of them are opposed to grammar schools.

Additionally, most schools, regardless of type, tend to give preferential treatment to their own teaching staff. What an odd and random point to throw in here again!

That's interesting and yes you're right it is a sad reflection on the system - which from where I'm sitting very few seem to be happy with.

These surveys were specifically for secondary - I haven’t seen any for primary. I also don’t consider myself to be wealthy, or many of the people I know who have done this. I don’t think they can all be wealthy if at least one in four parents are doing it. I would say they’re mostly middle class, though, and also people who highly value education. Unfortunately, it’s just sad that our education system is such a mess that people feel the need to do this! It also has a profound impact on house prices - just look at the best performing school areas (outside London) and then the prices around - it’s quite shocking and I say that as someone whose house will always maintain its value because of the schools it’s in catchment for!

Any other random thoughts without evidence...

This maybe is the case - like you say, and as I was saying largely wealthy middle class people are the ones who are doing this. The vast majority don't move.

I would also wonder how many of that 25% are moving for primary school - or moving for secondary? I too have lived in a few areas and I've only come across people moving for primary rather than secondary. As you say this is all anecdotal. It seems my friendship circles are not full of wealthy middle classes - even though I would properly be classed as middle class, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself wealthy middle class as a teacher.

I suspect that for many many years children from middle class families have been supported at home, to make up for any disrupted teaching due to behavioural issues etc and staff shortages. So prima facie the data suggests similar GCSE achievement, the truth is far from that. That’s why the middle class parent seeks out the very “set” comprehensive or some even have proper streams.

A lot of teachers I personally know have chosen grammar schools for their children. Is this quite common? Is there any data on this? We know a lot of teachers in private schools send their kids there too and many go and work in specific private schools to send their own kids there, often with a discount as unaffordable otherwise.
Some grammars give preference to teaching staff in their oversubscription criteria.
I suspect this will be another aspect some will object to.

I genuinely don’t know how they come to that conclusion. I’ve never met a secondary teacher in my life, in any type of school, myself included, who finds that to be their experience (there was one on a thread in here a while ago)!

The latest surveys are a bit outdated but they all suggest somewhere in the region of 25% of homeowners move purely to access a school catchment (these aren’t all permanent moves). The Independent, Guardian and DM all reported on this a few years back. I would imagine that number is even higher now, given the state of our education system and the VAT on school fees. You are right, of course, that personal experience is only anecdotal but I have lived in various parts of the UK and this has been commonplace in all of them (I’m also a teacher so I do actually ask kids where they come from). Obviously, it happens more in middle class areas than deprived areas.

No they very much like the concept of selection and understand it happens in comprehensives via top sets or in some, via streams - tends to be hush hush but all the parents know what they need to do.

It is clearly thay you don't understand the principle of aptitude test or banding, which is a method schools use to ensure they enroll a balanced mix of students across different ability levels.

It is fundamentally different from admissions based on the 11-plus exam.

“Perhaps they understand the banding system better, simply prefer mixed-ability schools and dislike the concept of grammar schools or dislike the personal beliefs like yours”

No they very much like the concept of selection and understand it happens in comprehensives via top sets or in some, via streams - tends to be hush hush but all the parents know what they need to do.

Well for high achieving autistic children grammar schools can be an excellent option and very cheap for the Government. Some if forced into large noisy comprehensives with behaviour issues may well develop EBSA. It’s why some kids with that profile get into grammar schools on appeal and get adjustment in the selection process itself.

Where have I said they couldn’t handle SEN? I said having to take on more SEN and a wider range of abilities was perfectly achievable. Just so you know SEN is not just high achieving autistic pupils who can manage in mainstream class, it also includes children with learning disabilities who need specific targeted support out of class and lessons aimed at alternative qualifications.