Are superselectives for the very able or only for geniuses?

[Ouluckyduck]

because my dd is very able, but not a genius or a prodigy. Will she fit in?

Those of you who say that your children are able but not geniuses, can I ask what level SATS they achieved in year 6?

It seems that there are so many pupils chasing places at these schools that I assumed that the children must be very bright indeed.

Oulucky I think we are all in the same boat. Able DCs but not geniuses

dd will probably get 5a in maths and reading, 5b in writing. Not sure about science.

I think DD will probably get a 5a in English and science, I suspect on a good day she could get a 6c in maths, but don't think they will be offered level 6 tests at her school

DD1 got 5a in reading, writing, maths and 5b in science, if I recall correctly.

Ok, thanks. My niece scored 4a at the end of year 4 so would probably do quite well. However there are no selectives in her area.

I told dd to expect not being one of top in the class anymore when she goes, but I think she won't mind that too much hopefully.

I think bright, able children can pass for the superselectives. DD1 is certainly no genius but she is bright, able and more importantly, motivated. She is a prolific reader, enjoys testing (weird child) and thrives on the challenge. Currently DD1 is at level 5a across the board and is being put in for the level 6 papers.

DD2 is a different kettle of fish altogether. She is just as able as DD1 and is currently at level 4b/4a for maths/literacy in year 4 however she is not motivated at all and quite lazy. She doesn't enjoy reading and doing any sort of school set homework is painful.

I don't think superselectives are the right school even for the brightest most able child. I think you also have to look at their personality and how they approach their work and decide whether or not they will thrive in that school. DD1 is off to Tiffin and I think will thrive - she is over the moon as it was her first choice. DD2 wants to got o Tiffin (because big sis is going there) but I honestly don't think it will necessarily be the right school for her.

My 3 are bigger and are at/went to superselectives. I agree that personality is important as to whether they fit in as well as ability.If a child isn't " a grafter" they are going to find a superselective unpleasant. Pace of teaching and work is fast, so there isn't the repetition etc that you might find elsewhere.

I have no idea "how bright" my kids are /were at entry - we weren't given the grammar test raw scores and SATS were only to level 5- which they all achieved across the board early in year 5. However in the Dds school where they give prizes for over all academic achievement the eldest got the form prize from year 8 to 11 (then there wasn't a similar award in 6th form) so she must have been amonths the 5 brightest in the year I guess. THe youngest is attempting to out do her sis and got the award in year 7 (she's only year 8 now). Boys school doesn't give a comparable award.

The stats I think are that the top 5% academically in the city get into these schools- to me that is still 1 in 20 so not necessarily "genius" material, but it means that only perhaps 4 would get in out of the year group or 90. This was pretty accurate (except DD1s year who were generally able and got 9 kids in).

Enrichment and extra curricular stuff is pretty huge too in my kids lives and the life of the school.

My feelings were that the kids needed exam practice to be able to do the tests early in year 6, but not tutoring that "taught them to pass the test" that would be wrong- I certainly didn't want to have to tutor them long term just for them to keep up.

Haziedoll your neice sounds like she would probably be grammar material but in an area with no grammars the "Comps" are truly comprehensive and cater for all abilities so I wouldn't worry. The problem in areas like ours is that it is like the 1960s- If you are bright but not in grammar school you aren't catered for

this is interesting! dd is at a "feeder" prep for NW and I have been led to believe that she has the ability to get a place. However, I have also heard that there is a problem at NW with regard to the teaching of maths and chemistry, and that girls who struggle as a result are not allowed to resit their GCSEs and A'Levels at NW but have to go elsewhere. Does anyone know how true this is? thanks

No, kids at superselectives are not geniuses - I went to one (came top in English in entrance exam) and I'm not remotely genius-like - i just read non-stop and I'm good at exams (accurate, over-sensitive, bit perfectionist). One of my best friends, from school, who got the best first in her subject for 50 years from Cambridge I wouldn't call a genius either - she's v sharp, mentally very active and energetic (and physically too - she has the physical stamina to persevere) with strong intellectualy interests - but not a genius.

Actually, we were among the top few academically at our v popular superselective, and, now I come to think about it, there wasn't anyone I ever met at school who fell into 'genius' category.

Maybe my standards for 'genius' are higher than yours (?) but I actually have met very few people ever who fell into that category. Oxford did have a few.

I think the term genius is being used very loosely here bread.

I came top in Surrey in the competition for direct grant places of which the top slice of 11+ entrants succeeded (I've got a certificate to prove it :), which my proud mother kept). And those were the heady days before the perniciousness of tutoring took hold and merit held sway. I'm fairly able, no more.

If my early promise has flowered at all then it's solely through my DC, several of whom are at or have been at the top of their super selective in terms of results. Not a single one of those is a genius, and none would consider him or herself as being exceptionally able. A very tiny number of their friends at school and at university may have the seeds of genius sown, but none of mine.

If a child passes the test, he or she will be fine. Don't worry about it.

I think it depends on which school - some SSs are superSS. I live in north London and my DS did not get into the nearest SS. 6 from his school applied (including him), all "very able", some with sibs at the school, some heavily tutored since year 3. Only one got through the first round and none got a place. At least I wasn't one of the parents who shelled out £thousands on tutoring! [Though of course one could argue - and the other kids did - how inately bright the heavily tutored ones would have been without the tutoring....]. All will end up going to the local schools anyway...

I agree, it depends where you live, one of the best selectives in our area has over 1000 applicants for 150 places and they also select on music ability as well as the exam results.
Still, if you think your child is bright and able, there is no harm in trying for a grammar school, a lot of children are heavily tutored for these exams but dd1 is at DOA and was not tutored at all, just practice papers at home and ds1 is at latymer, again not tutored and doesn't play a musical instrument!

You can buy the 11+ practice papers, why not try them out at home and see how you get on, it will give you some idea of where your child is at, maybe you could do some outside tutoring to prepare?

I think the whole genius/non-genius, heavily-tutored etc conversations are just a scam to get lots of tutors in business, I really do. It plays on our insecurities as parents and encourages the more gullible amongst us to part with lots of money for teaching kids very basic skills that they should be learning at any primary school and that any normal parent could easily cover if they haven't anyway.

I think the main reason kids fail these tests is because their parents are frightened into believing that 'the' tutor is some kind of semi-magical figure who will get their kids into any school, and the more expensive they are, the better the magic will work!

The truth is that there is no secret formula and the kids are brightish, yes, but not geniuses. If your kid is on the top table, it's worth them having a go - but speed and accuracy rather than genius are the real skills being tested here, not genius level maths or anything. Slow reading but bright kids may not pass - doesn't mean they are not bright; 11+ exams do not really test for genius, and a child who is exceptionally bright in ways not tested by the exams may still fail - eg higher-level analytical skills are not really tested until A level or beyond, in most cases, but strong analytical abilities are arguably a better demonstration of intelligence than the ability to get simple maths problems correct, say. Likewise, great creative gifts will not be recognised. Dyslexic kids may fail because of the accuracy/speed factor but be way above in understanding of the topics etc etc etc.

The system for picking kids at 11 is highly fallible; if your dc passes then great, but don't assume they are a genius or are competong with geniuses on a daily basis. If they fail, they can get an excellent education in the top stream of comps and do not assume - or let them assume - that they are failures in any way. There is more than one way to achieve and 11+ only measures a very narrow range of them, and that not always perfectly, as it depends on performance in a single set of exams on a single day.

breadandbutterfly the voice of reason

Great post breadandbutterfly

Well said breadandbutterfy

My DD has just passed and she is by no means a genius. Just a fab, bright, sparky girl who has lots of interests and works hard (at what she likes )

A lot depends on how they do on the day and the system is about as fallible as it can be so why not have a go?

Just out of interest, when did the concept of 'superselective' schools first come about? And how? I don't remember anything about them when I was younger, but maybe I just didn't move in the right circles then...

It depends when you were young Foxton, because clearly it didn't apply when grammars were universal.

Carbonel the system is fallible, but definitely not 'as fallible as it can be'. The HTs don't run a lottery and on the whole with a few exceptions the right children get in.

@Yellowtip Yes it did apply when grammars were universal. At least in some places. For example, in North London, top scoring boys were offered places at QE Boys Barnet whether or not they actually lived in Barnet. DH was the only boy in his (not Barnet but on the borders) primary school 'sent' there - it was all done on score.

No idea how old you are, Foxton, but it is largely the result of the Greenwich ruling in 1989 which meant that local authorities could no longer reserve places in their schools for their own residents. It meant that selective schools in selective areas were now available to to pupils from adjacent non-selective areas which resulted in a significant surge in demand. This really only affected schools in urban areas like the outer London boroughs. It did not so much affect selective areas like Kent or Lincolnshire, most of whose schools were only accessible to children living in those areas.

Friend's dd got 5 A's, 5 A*'s at local comp in Hampshire. That's higher than the average for my dd's grammar

Actually I think I do remember there being a pecking order in the Croydon/ Surrey area too now you say that thetasigmamum. I'm quite curious to find out the mechanics of the system back then and see how it worked.

Anyhow, I stand corrected. Though I suppose superselectives then were superselective in terms of quality rather than purely non selective geographically and it doesn't always add up to the same thing, though it tends to.