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

I would like to reiterate the main point of the post:

Grammar schools claim to select students based on "natural academic ability", yet their student intake disproportionately consists of certain socio-economic and ethnic groups. This shows that selection is not purely meritocratic but is instead socially selective.

If the selection process does not reliably identify the most naturally able students, then grammar schools fail at their stated purpose. This raises the central question:

Should taxpayer money be used to fund a system that is, by design, socially selective?

What exactly is the rationale for focussing on those parts of society that work e.g. private schools and grammar schools? So the 12% of kids who are being well educated or whatever and will likely pay shed loads of tax in the future.

Why would any sane Government go for them?
Why would they not focus on what is urgent, child poverty, SEND crisis, mental health crisis toxic screen exposure to make sure that those kids from there grow up into something with a reasonable future. They already have the statistics and kids from those groups on benefits. They have admitted it. It is urgent, it is a huge problem. Sort it out.

Why would anyone be stupid enough to believe that the children in the former group are somehow responsible for the Government’s failings on behalf of the latter.

There are 163 grammar schools in England, educating around 188,000 students—a significant portion of government-funded education. Grammar schools also receive additional targeted funding, including £200 million allocated for expansion, with £50 million distributed in 2018-19 through the Selective School Expansion Fund (I do not know if this will continue)

State education is funded by all taxpayers, meaning its allocation is a concern for everyone, not just parents in selective areas. The debate over grammar school funding is not about individual parental choice, but about whether this system benefits society as a whole.

A large body of evidence (see my previous posts) demonstrates that grammar schools do not significantly improve educational outcomes or enhance social mobility at a systemic level. Given this, why should taxpayer money continue to fund an opaque, selective system that does not provide clear, measurable benefits to the wider education system?

I still have no idea what kind of elite you're talking about—those from grammar schools, whose parents proudly believe they are top 5% natrually born special?

Well, if the government can act on the 7% of private schools, I don't see why it wouldn't address the 5%. It seems like a straightforward task that wouldn’t cost much but could easily put the debate to rest. Besides, this isn't urgent for you as it is the past issje anyway.

@bluegoosie

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?

The elites have already answered your question :)
The answer is "f@ck ya all!"

rabid ideologies is bad, but the area was, and is rich housing, and large proportion of Jewish communities. The school itself clearly not a reflective of their local community. Whatever the local community means.

There is not really much of a grammar system left over though? It is 5% overall, some superselectives in London that we were talking about that really do attract very bright kids from all sorts of areas, then there are the last remaining grammar areas in Kent, Bucks, Lincolnshire and apparently the people in those areas still like their grammar schools. When you look at the affluent parts of Bucks and Kent, there is not really an indication that the results of all kids, taken as a whole, are adversely impacted by the existence of grammar schools. If anything, places like Bucks hugely benefit indirectly. People move there bringing affluence with them into local councils and house prices are steady etc.
If anyone wanted to get rid of state grammar schools in those areas, surely it is up to those areas to decide what they want? If it means a fall in-house prices, people leaving etc, displaced kids, I really doubt they would vote for it.

It's not just QE that doesn't have the catchment area. HBS is the same as many other grammars.

HBS used to be very representative of the local area - then people with a massive chip on the shoulder or rabid ideologies hated it for being "rich Jewish tw@ts school" 🤷‍♀️

Haters gonna hate. It's not as simple and straightforward as you picture it. It's in British culture to hate high achievers and there is of course a huge class hatred between different strata of the population, too.

My daughter is already segregated from the community we live in, just because we aren’t like most of the families that live here. Yeah, we’ve found some other familes like us, but it’s not the norm.

How will it have a detrimental social effect on her not be be sat in the park smoking weed with dickheads off the estate after school like the teenage girls I walk past everyday?

People who spout diversity really need to spend a week in the shithole I live in. You’d soon change your mind.

Raising levies, charging fees, stopping funding, and converting them into private schools makes economic sense.

The whole type of school question is a thing of the past

Yet you write paragraph after paragraph of random thoughts, attempting to justify something you yourself claimed is 'a thing of the past'

Are Grammar Schools Improving Education for Society as a Whole?

A major issue with grammar schools is that they do not operate in isolation. Their existence directly impacts non-selective schools in their areas.

Research from Durham University (2018) found that regions with grammar schools did not perform better overall than fully comprehensive regions.Areas with selective education systems tend to have worse overall GCSE outcomes than areas with fully comprehensive systems.

This challenges the claim that grammar schools raise standards across the education system. Instead, they may simply redistribute high-achieving students without adding significant value.

If grammar schools do not significantly improve academic progress, and if they do not promote social mobility at a societal level, then:

• What is the justification for maintaining a state-funded selection system at age 11?
• Why should public money be spent on a system that lacks scientific scrutiny and independent oversight?
• Wouldn’t resources be better spent improving comprehensive education for all students?

@Dtnews - no it is you who keeps going on about social mobility. Screen exposure is the number one factor in social mobility right now.
The whole type of school question is a thing of the past.

There is no economic case for getting rid of grammar school selection. They are excellent value for the State, producing outstanding results at low levels of pupil funding. There really is no argument here that the State is going to go on yet another vanity project that makes no economic sense like the private school VAT.

@bluegoosie

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.

This is an interesting but lengthy discussion, I would need to post lots of research papers which would be off topic. The research is vast of course but no less inconclusive 😁 There has been yet another paper recently discussed even here on MN, the authors claim IQ is over 85% hereditary or something like that. The numbers are meaningless as there will be another paper disproving this, then another paper and so on and so forth.

Having studied neuroscience, I am of course pro-nurture as the brain has an enormous potential to develop, even beyond childhood. And of course intelligence is not fixed and depends on the environment. This is exactly why parents will continue fighting for good education! 😂

We have a huge group of children being let down by their parents by toxic levels of exposure to the internet and all the safeguarding issues there. Go focus on that instead

Why don't you start a dedicated thread to discuss that? You seem more passionate and urgently concerned about an issue that you yourself have declared as not urgent. IMHO, it is fundamental.

I think in the grammar school debate it is very important keep sight of the most important principles

The grammar school system exists on the assumption that

1. Their tests only select for the most able students in terms of "natural ability" in academics
2. Grouping these students together in one school improves their educational outcomes
3. Grammars schools have a positive impact on social mobility and education across society

Grammar school tests:

There is no external oversight of grammar school tests. There is no rigorous scientific process by which tests are examined and compared. There are no scientific publications demonstarting these tests actually fulfil the their intended purposes.

So why are grammar school tests a valid method of selection for 11-year olds?
And why should we be funding this opaque, possibly scientifically unsound selection process with the state education budget?

Grammer school progress scores:

If grammar schools truly added more value than non-selective schools, we would expect them to significantly outperform comprehensives when prior attainment is controlled for.

Education Policy Institute (EPI) Report (2018):
Found that once prior attainment was accounted for, grammar schools provided only a very small progress advantage over non-selective schools.

In fact, pupils with similar academic ability in high-performing comprehensives made nearly identical progress as their grammar school counterparts.

The report concluded that “grammar schools do not provide a better boost to progress compared to similar pupils in comprehensive schools.”

Grammar schools and social mobility:

Multiple large-scale studies have found no significant evidence that grammar schools have a meaningful positive impact on social mobility.

Sutton Trust (2017):
Found that grammar school students were less likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds ( this is independent of FSM)

Disadvantaged pupils who did attend grammar schools still had similar GCSE outcomes to comparable students in good comprehensive schools.

The report concluded that grammar schools do not offer a unique social mobility advantage.

Education Policy Institute (2016):

Found that disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools were still less likely to enter elite universities than their wealthier peers, even when they had similar grades.

This suggests that socioeconomic background continues to play a role in educational outcomes, even for those who pass the 11+.

Given this body of evidence, I think it is correct that we question whether the state should continue to fund grammar schools.

66% grammar schools were downgraded by Ofsted lately when it evaluated elements beyond exam results. Including some superselective grammar in London

Go look at the parent questionnaire maybe? They are happy with these schools.

Self-selection fallacy and confirmation bias once again prove my point: you truly want to believe that sending your kids to a special school caters to their unique needs, which I understand.

Of course they will @Ubertomusic including with their personal adhominems directed at us.

The point of this thread was that supposedly some kid flew in for a grammar test. If that is true, then I do not care. Some academically really able kid and their likely tax contributing parents who will get a work visa flew in to contribute to our flailing economy. That kid will likely end up at a top university and contribute to the economy. It is exactly what we want and what we are encouraging anyway. The whole university sector is propped up by rich students flying in to keep us all afloat. So what. Many stay and take jobs and contribute. We need these young hardworking and talented people. They add to the economy, not the opposite.

The discussions around types of schooling private state grammar comprehensive etc - they are no longer urgent. We have a huge group of children being let down by their parents by toxic levels of exposure to the internet and all the safeguarding issues there. Go focus on that instead. That is what is coming out of Harvard, Eton and all the elite educational institutions.

One thing I can absolutely guarantee is that this flavour of Labour will not be getting rid of grammar schools. Nor academies, nor free schools. They are not even getting rid of KS2 SATS, so the 11 plus stays anyway.

Ofsted has published raving reviews about all the London superselective grammar schools. So now suddenly it is a problem for the kids in them? Have heard it all now!
Some of the best results in the country, excellent Ofsteds, none of what you two are saying @Dtnews or @bluegoosie makes any sense. Go look at the parent questionnaire maybe? They are happy with these schools. The kids are thriving mainly. They are getting into top universities as well.

As usual, going off-topic randomly when running out of arguments