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

It’s what many of my friends and colleagues do

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.

Many grammar schools have sets, but how effective they are depends largely on how the school manages them

It’s by far random! It’s what many of my friends and colleagues do if they don’t want to pay for private school, move house or tutor.
The volatility of sets is what many parents complain of and the pressure to perform in tests to stay in good tests.
DS grammar doesn’t set until Year 10, they don’t need to!

Another random thought, you clearly have no understanding

Students might be in the top set for maths but not for English, or vice versa. Meanwhile, they share the same class for arts, clubs, and PE. SETs can be changed per year or per term.. This structure is fundamentally different.

Any form of complicated admissions system and aptitude test attracts your middle class parent. Oldest trick in the book!

You have missed my point and seem to be talking largely about middle class wealthy families.

Parents are sold the illusion of choice if they can't afford private or their children don't get into a grammar school. Every year many families do not their first choice on national offers day. Just recently a number of threads on here have been about just that!

Incorrect. You have clearly misinterpreted the concept of aptitude tests and banding. Schools using aptitude tests still have a mixed-ability intake by definition. They are not grammar schools in any way, shape, or form.

@dtnews- a lot of London schools now have aptitude tests up to 10 per cent so are partially selective. Most clued up parents going to “mixed ability” comprehensives with challenging demographics engineer for their kids to get into top set which is pretty much like grammar anyway.

The reason the London Challenge worked is because it created choice for parents and teachers and gave academies independence

Academic independence does not permit admissions through the 11-plus exam, as this is specifically stated—except for existing grammar schools. So, if there are so many success stories across London comprehensive schools, why is getting rid of the 11-plus admissions such a big deal?

Oh yes, 95% of state-funded schools in this country have mixed-ability admissions, but that doesn’t mean every school has mixed-ability classes. Dismissing all of them by claiming it’s agenda-driven doesn’t make the research untrue. There is little evidence to suggest otherwise.

Not having a choice is less of an issue if you live in a posh area like Cambridge or Winchester because all schools are pretty good and the demographic is middle class. So remove choice everywhere people who can just flock to those kinds of places.
The reason the London Challenge worked is because it created choice for parents and teachers and gave academies independence where the head can choose what may work best for their particular demographic.

I don’t use grammar schools at all, just as many people don’t use public services. However, they can still have opinions about the system

I’ve read all the similar studies on why mixed ability classes are good for the high achievers compared to streamed classes, but like all studies, they are 99% written and funded to suit an agenda. All I know is I suffered through mixed ability classes where the teacher had to spend more time on behavioural management than actual teaching. I’m not putting my kids in that position. Don’t make my choice for me, and I won't make yours for you.

I think part of the problem with the system is the minority have choice - the vast majority don't. That is a big problem.

Because it creates even more of a ghetto effect in deprived areas to the point that doctors, counsellors, all types of professionals end up refusing to live there in the first place leading to a further deprivation. Grammars and private schools would be their choice if they went to such a place in the first place. Remove all choice, the area deteriorates even more.
There is no argument for abolition superselectives, they have no detrimental effect on comprehensives. That has been shown.

oh god, I just can’t be arsed anymore.

You have a bee in your bonnet about grammars. Good for you, don’t use them then.

But you guys carry on. You will be the ones paying for this.

This sounds more like a Russian style comment.

Where you are maybe. But as I said earlier your own experience isn't evidence of this being a national issue. I would suggest that only a small majority of wealthy middle classes can afford to this. I might be wrong but I await evidence to demonstrate that..

Yeah, it was the same when I was in London. My eldest is in their 20s, I remember the days when parents would rent a studio flat for a few months just for an address to apply from. By the time ds started secondary, they had really cracked down on it.

It’s only a small proportion

So, what’s the issue with having the same system implemented across the entire country?

A win win for who? A Russian social media agitator per chance?

Sounds like it is win win suitation.

It’s extremely common for secondary. It’s why our local schools require evidence of having lived at an address for 2 years prior to acceptance of a place.

I’m assuming you don’t live where I do. I work here, in a role in schools. My dd would be one of the girls who gets ripped to shreds. I’ve seen it, sadly. I’ve seen girls like her get bullied. They usually dumb themselves down to fit in or just has a really hard time of it.

Her teachers have said the same. They knew years ago we wouldn’t be sending her to school locally, I know some of them really well now, and I’ve discussed all this with them.

Also I wouldn’t stick around for that kind of disruption for my child’s education. I can’t comment more widely but I already have 3 colleagues going abroad for work as a direct result of the private school VAT. But you guys carry on. You will be the ones paying for this.