To wonder why priority isn’t given to state school children when allocating grammar school places ?

[Hermanhessescat]

I don’t live in a grammar school area but there is back door selection by affluence (one of best secondaries is in a nice leafy suburb) or by religious belief (equally high achieving secondaries are c of e or Muslim). I have no personal experience of them apart from the fact that my DF attended one in the 40s, enabling him to leave his deprived hometown and go to a fairly prestigious uni.
Many posters in the past have talked about sending their dc to private preps then trying for a state grammar at 11 which surely puts said children at a huge advantage due to smaller classes, better facilities and active preparation for the 11 plus.
How come the grammars don’t therefore give precedence to state school educated children who pass then allocate remaining places to those who weren't ? Or have a slightly lower cut off point for those children who attended schools in particularly deprived areas ? I appreciate that’s probably a fairly simplistic idea and prepare to be flamed

I have not noticed that nor at Habs where our other daughter went from age 5 (and both girls are city lawyers but they are not unusual to have high grades and done well joining the schools inthe juinors by the way. Their friends from that age group are very successful doctors, lawyers, all sorts "despite" being in the junior school.

I live in Kent, which is a wholly selective county. I have been volunteering in a Reception class for many years now, and could predict pretty accurately the 11+ passers on day one. There are always a few surprises on results day, but not many. And, while natural ability comes into it, it is by no means the only, or even the main, indicator.

I attended a presentation at a highly selective 4-18 school very recently and the headmistress was very upfront about the fact that selection at 4+ was very hit and miss and, yes, the school made mistakes at that age and had to manage pupils out further down the line.

I think one of the biggest issues with selecting at aged 11 (or 4) is that children develop their potential at different ages. This is a big problem in parts of the US where children are streamed very young and are then schooled separately for the rest of their school life.

If intelligence is an inheritable gene, with up to 50% of intelligence inherited (I know, this opens up another can of worms) - and "the genetic influence on measured intelligence appears to increase over time, from about 20 percent in infancy to 40 percent in childhood to 60 percent in adulthood" (BTW this works when looking at the intelligence of adopted children compared with their biological parents and their adoptive parents - they have similar levels to their biological parents, not their adoptive parents, so the current evidence suggests it is not purely nurture)- you can choose to assess intelligence for the purpose of education at 11 but I don't think that you can make assumptions about underlying absolute intelligence until adulthood - should you wish to. Therefore there is no reason that the junior school students mentioned above shouldn't be successful in later life even if they were perceived as less intelligent at 11. But it also raises questions about measuring raw intelligence for school selection purposes at 11. That doesn't necessarily mean that the selection shouldn't be there, however, if the children are demonstrating potential at this age. It does mean that you should continue to develop all children's potential at different ages, and that you should look at the environmental factors that influence the other 50% of intelligence. As scientists are already developing IVF selection on the basis of intelligence, presumably we will all be being scanned for IQ in a few years time and automatically assigned schools www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032041-900-exclusive-a-new-test-can-predict-ivf-embryos-risk-of-having-a-low-iq/

www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/

But "intelligence" is such a subjective narrow measure

Part of the point of encouraging kids to be schooled at least until 16 in an entirely mixed environment is that it lest them learn about the whole world rather than just a subset of it.

They may not choose to mix with the different groups at lunch, but they are aware of their existence
and by reading the timetable know that only 1/3 of kids take A levels

they might even learn that not everybody can be above average hello Mr Gove

If more of our current cohort I cannot bring myself to call them class had gone to comprehensive schools they might have understood the 'left behind' a bit better and next March would not be looming.

I'm very intelligent (honest) but I can't do non verbal reasoning. Both my children tried to teach me but I just can't do it.

We have not seen children leaving at senior school age who had started at 4 or 7. In fact the schools reckon they are pretty good at assessing who is bright at 5 or 7 pretty well. i can see people not agreeing with me on the thread and that's fine. I know my daughters' friends and what they now do in terms of career so either these schools are good at assessing who is bright aged 5 or else they are good at taking not clever children and helping them fulfil their potential. Also a parent who can afford fees from age 5 presumably tends to be the brighter higher paid parent who is likely to have bright children anyway; whereas those scrimping and scraping by in state primaries to age 11 may have lower income because they are not quite so clever.

That's like my son, Bertrand; he just doesn't get it at all, yet he was really good at maths, science and computing at school. OTOH, he is very good at verbal reasoning but English and French were his worst subjects!

Also a parent who can afford fees from age 5 presumably tends to be the brighter higher paid parent who is likely to have bright children anyway;
Well, their husbands might earn a load as a banker, but they are thick but ornamental

Howevr successful people these days do tend to marry someone equally as bright in lots of cases. They do assortive mating, people they met at Oxbridge etc rather than like the old days where boss married big busted Janice from the typing pool who is not very bright but has the rather large chest.... and dating apps will say if someone has a degree and that kind of thing.

I know - I'm being mean.
But the fact is that "selection" at age 4 is about selecting the parents, not the kids.

Electric
You have to bear in mind that Xenia is just who she is (and is so much simpler since she dropped the years of pseudonyms).
She had her kids and her divorce and her island. She likes her bubble.
Play along. Its more relaxing.

Xenia- whose standard advice is “go and get a better job and earn more money” regardless of the problem.........

I don't think it's particularly controversial to think those who earn a lot of mnoey tend to be those with the most qualifications rather than in say the 50% of British people who don't get average grade GCSEs surely? I am not saying there are not bright parents of children at comprehensives and state grammars of course and I did post that link i think on this thread to the top 20 comps and grammars.

However some bright people have no interest in money at all and that's fine too. For me the thing that matters most in life is good health and being mentally well.

"For me the thing that matters most in life is good health and being mentally well"

So why have I never seen you post without mentioning money?

Most things in life are easier with money. Easier to have good physical health, mental health and educational health.

I feel a tad odd to be mildly defending Xenia but
she coughed up for private selective schools.
She did not game the state system to get her kids perks

and in the big scheme of things, rich or insecure people will always pay to keep their children away from the great unwashed.

leave them to it

What I cannot abide and will campaign against is
STATE FUNDED education that
excludes on the basis of god, gonads or gamesmanship

and THAT is what we should all see to overturn
as it is a waste of taxpayers money

Hear, hear Talkin

You forgot those who are excluded by money in the state system. Those excluded by postcode.How are grammars a waste of tax payers money? Every kid has to go somewhere and costs the tax payer regardless. A grammar kid gets no more and would cost the tax payer regardless.