For anyone who still thinks that access to selective state education is a level playing field.....

[curlew]

I have just read the latest OfSTED for my dd's grammar school.

There are no children in Year 7 who are eligible for FSM. None. Not one.

I would never have guessed at 10 that dd1 would choose Maths at A level - still less that it would be her favourite of all her choices! So I do agree it's not necessarily wise to predict in year 6 like that.

Frankly, a brief glance at the 'Teenagers' topic demonstrates how many kids change dramatically between 11 and 16.

But choices of A levels etc are changes/development of tastes, no?

They don't speak of a person's innate ability.

I bet you both knew your DC were fairly able at 10.

Actually no, WF, I worried DD1 was Distinctly Thick on account of the maths.

And yes all schools offer maths provision, but you may find your sciencey son in fact suddenly discovers a passion for geography. Or an art teacher unlocks a facility and talent for art. That is what education, and indeed adolescence*, should be about, surely: the uncovering of personality and skills.

*the bits that aren't specialising in Hanging Around Pointlessly, Slamming Doors Loudly and Wasting Time Texting, obviously.

Maths ability doesn't suddenly miraculously appear from nowhere in your teens. If your DD wasn't able to display it earlier, that is because she lacked the opportunity, at school and at home.

Really?

Maybe I'm an optimist. No I am an optimist . But I figured both mine were quite clever (though I'll admit I didn't know DS would turn out to be such an outlier at 10).

But in many ways, I do think this whole debate misses the point. Sure grammar schools don't serve DC on FSMs very well. But neither does the comprehensive system. If we're looking at ways to improve the lives of DC in that socio economic sector, mithering about which secondary school they attend is way down the list of priorities!

I have recently heard two separate reliable witness accounts of prostitution in the toilets of two schools in Paris. One the equivalent of a comprehensive (in a leafy suburb) and the other in a highly-selective highly sought-after private school.

Thanks for that, Bonsoir (I should probably say for the record that DD1 did get a level 5 at SATS in her maths, to rescue a reputation I may inadvertently have trashed. But it wasn't a sure-fire thing)...

Hmm, I admit I did think dd was bright at 10, but her primary school last report very much focusses on her writing of stories, and reading age etc (same for dd2) - and her maths had to be given a determined push in year 6 to make sure it didn't let her down in year 7.

When I bumped into her old teachers again after she'd left, they would say 'oh is she still writing lots/enjoying reading?' etc, and that was definitely her strength until a little while into secondary, where she found she actually enjoyed and was good at maths, rather than feeling that, as a reasonably bright child, she ought to be good at maths too.

I think it's partly that maths is more interesting the further along you get with it - both mine were a bit freaked out by times tables and 'grids' at primary, but dd1 actually enthuses about how much she likes differentiation (I don't know what that is in a Maths sense, but she likes it).

So anyway - I think had she been sitting an 11+, maths would have caused us some stress, and if anything had let her down, it would have been that. So I am pleasantly surprised and consequently cautious about deciding a child's strengths and weaknesses at 10.

I think we project our own fantasies onto our children of their abilities, talents and personalities, actually. All too often.

Agreed.

And I don't agree that anything's hard-wired, much, but then I'm very much a nurture over nature person. A debate for a different thread!

Since my DSSs are not my children, I am unlikely to have projected many fantasies upon them. I did, however, live in very close proximity to them and could observe them closely. I rest my case: their innate temperament and strengths and weaknesses have not changed (sometimes frustratingly so). What has changed has been the opportunties afforded them to express them and develop them.

Actually just as I did, both mine have rather liked algebra (letters nicer than numbers? And I always liked the fancy Greek xs and zs), but (and this is guess work, I suppose, because it might actually be that this is what's in CAT papers, I don't know), I think the other stuff might have been more bothersome.

But I've not seen a CAT paper or an 11+, so can't be sure - all I can say is, I would never have thought at 10 that she'd want to do A level maths, and that she'd enjoy it so much.

But... one parent's recognition of flair is another's deprecating admission that a child quite likes doing something, isn't it?

I think this happens especially with maths vs literacy. My bloody father donated to the girls' primary school a book that he'd written (for which I still haven't entirely forgiven him) and afterwards every time a dd got Special Mention for anything writing related, the head would say things about it being genetic etc... And that's my background, too, which fuels the fire. One crappy teacher in year 3 tried to say dd2 shouldn't get upset about not being as strong in maths because she was so very good at reading....

It is one reason I loved her year 5 teacher, who said 'well, of course dd2 enjoys reading and writing and that's a real strength, but we don't want to just ignore the maths because of that, do we?'. And thereafter dd2 did become good at maths as well.

Motherinferior I agree. Over thinking it a lot Now that ds is 19 and at university it is really interesting to see who did what from his contemporaries. Not always what you would expect. Lots of disappointed parents who expected 'more' because they had been so involved in choices and guidance early on. Nothing wrong with this btw we cannot help who we are but if you expect a certain outcome from going the extra mile aged 11 you may get a shock! Conversely met a woman on the bus yesterday from ds primary She was often the subject of playground tittle tattle etc and didn't fit the mould of the boden ites But her dh did a lot of decorating in my developments and I always liked her and her attitude. Both her dds were what could be described as disruptive Eldest is working in Aus as an engineer and the younger one my ds age is at uni doing law.

So what I mean is, if one dd draws something really nice, one parent's less-informed, or less loving, or less keen, response might be 'gosh that's pretty just pop it in the recycling on your way out' and another's might be, wow, that's not just pretty that's Real Flair, because of course there are lots of talented artists in our family so it's not surprising.... etc.