Super selectives: how much value do they add?

[Oneveryworriedmum]

I'm starting to look at senior schools for my daughter and the head has suggested trying for some super selective schools. Thing is, I found the atmosphere at some of them rather pressurised and competitive and I worry that my child, who is rather academic but not very confident, may be crushed there. She's the type that would do better being a big fish in a small, nurturing pond rather than one of the many in a bigger, competitive pond, IYSWIM.
But would she really miss out if she went to, say, Tormead, Surbiton High or (with a lot of luck because of mini-catchment) our outstanding local comp, rather than Guildford High, LEH or Tiffin Girls?
I guess what I am trying to find out is whether there is genuine value at being at a super selective (better education, more academic 'stretching', access to better universities) or whether their fantastic results are simply down to the fact that they cream off the brightest and best, who would do just as well anywhere else?
Views gratefully appreciated, particularly from people who have gone through the system!

My hope is that the decision to change the exam was not so much a desire to week out those with English as a second language, but to try to bring a halt to the sad process whereby hundereds of children were spending important chunks of their childhood not kicking footballs or spending time with family and friends, but practicing endless VR and non-VR.

We know the odd child who went there, and one very happy parent. However my concern would be that the school has a number of kids who have not been encouraged to explore and enquire, but who instead may think that success depends on being able to put numbers in sequence or spot triangles.

But that's not the school's doing needmore

There will always be parents who encourage academic achievement over everything else and discourage anything else.

That's true at every comp, let alone selective school.

Perhaps. However my concern would be the proportion and the extent to which this influences school culture, given the entry process effectively demands dedication and practice. (Though hopefully to a lesser extent now.)

But really I dont know enough. DS tried but did not get in. He was ot that far off but we had been unwilling to jump the tutoring and practice hoops. We were not particularly upset though could have done without the burden of school fees. We know two exceptionally bright DC who did earn places, neither with external tutoring. When they got there they found they were in a distinct minority, and that they were far higher up the year group than their 11+ scores would have predicted.

The proportion of parents that demand there DCs to work work work is significantly higher than in a comp. It is well known that the sports teams also suffer as a result, prepare to be generally in a struggling or losing team was the comment given to me.

OP I had two DDs go through one of the independent schools you mention as superselective. it was fantastic for one, she chose it over an even more selective school that was originally her first choice because she knew it was the school for her. However that was after she had had a chance to experience the atmosphere and had had a stimulating interview with the Head who she felt was interested in her as an individual and also injected some fun into the process. She is not especially confidant and was not one of the uber competitive overconfidant girls but she made a lovely friendship group and was definitely one of the brighter ones, though we had no way of knowing that before because she applied from the equivalent of a UK state school which did not prepare you or have experience of the schools.

My other DD also not especially confidant wanted to and did follow her sister though like you I always felt it probably wasn't right for her and though bright she would be better in a school that was more mixed, both academically and in terms of gender. It didn't work out, not because she didn't belong there academically, she was somewhere in the middle, but because she found herself in a very difficult cohort with a lot of disruptive, manipulative and exclusive behaviour and just did not have the skills to deal with it. She had lovely friends but they all felt under seige, constantly vulnerable to the attention seeking behaviour. She moved to another coed for sixth form, that you probably wouldn't put in the "superselective" category though like SHS still perfectly able to enable it's brightest pupils to get strings of A*s and to top universities, the one my instincts were telling me was "right" at 11. She found, as she put it, a "normal" and very encouraging atmosphere. She made a lot of friends, was happy and did if anything better academically and has gone off to university a much more confidant girl.

Unfortunately no parent can know whether her DD will encounter a cohort like that at any school (it can happen at any school but I think the competitive parenting that is an underlying cause is more likely to be an issue at the most selective schools). However I do think that if you and your DD have an instinct about which school is right then providing it enables it's brightest pupils to achieve their potential, and we are very well served with a wide choice of schools that do that around here, then whether they generally are able to select more of the brightest pupils, have a get better overall results and get put into a "superselective" category In the local context is probably less relevent. SHS in many other parts of the country would be regarded as superselective.

And totally agree with Needmoresleep on Tiffin. I have experience of using VR/NVR tests for recruitment and you pay for them to be constantly developed with unpredictable questions so that practise beyond a very few papers (less than 10) will not improve scores, that is the test of quality, that they are genuine tests of ability. The tutoring industry that has grown up around Tiffin to achieve alleged improvements in scores over years of tutoring with zero educational benefit (suggesting that understandably with the costs of testing 1000s they can't afford decent tests ) just backs up the evidence of their results that they were not selecting the brightest, though may do better with the greater evidence they will now have. My DD also hated it when visiting, felt the atmosphere was cold and slightly brutal and the Science labs were horrible. If you can afford to pay you certainly get more resources and facilities.

So basically do not be "very worried" , relax, look around the schools, choose the four you most like including one aspirational, one achievable and one back up. Go through the admissions process and then make the choice according to rational factors, like facilities, extra curricular, school journey, and whatever else matters to you but also don't be afraid to include that irrational judgement about which feels right, where you and your DD feel she will be most happy, you are best placed to make that instinctive judgement.

The question arises whether the output of Tiffin (including relatively few Oxbridge places as a crude measure of aspiration and a non narrow academic focus) reflects the majority type of pupils / backgrounds who are selected by the entrance test (requiring dedicated preparation) rather than the type of schooling that Tiffin grammars offer. The obvious answer would be a combination but that might be doing the teachers there a disservice.

And also of you are in the catchment of an outstanding comp then also consider that, I do agree that bright pupils in top sets can achieve as well as they would in a superselective /indie, I can't be bothered to dig them out but the stats for Coombe's high attainers are comparable to Tiffin and I am sure in time Greycourt's etc. will also be. Given the nature of the Tiffin admissions process there are lots of very bright pupils in those top sets. again it is about which school feels right for your DD.

Just wonder how do unis see grammar school candidates. Are they regarded as ind or state? I know gss are state funded but many of the kids come from private primaries. Does this mean that some people just get all the advantages from both worlds?

Yes everyone there has done pretty well in VR and NVR but since about half of them have English as a foreign language would you want your child to attend?

Um, yes, I might, absolutely. In practice I might not choose this particular school but not because of EAL reasons per se.

I find it more concerning that many schools use tests which exclude bright children who don't speak English as a first language or who aren't familiar with some aspects of UK culture. E.g. my DC had an English comprehension paper with church references and some of the questions assumed familiarity with words such as pulpit and deacon.

(BTW My British children spent their primary years abroad and speak English as a third language. Their English is accentless and their academic performance is extremely high, across the board, including in essay subjects, which may explain why I particularly dislike blanket prejudice against EAL children.)

I think there is some widespread belief that universities treat all state school candidates very differently than private school candidates. This is not true. The UCAS forms list polar data; they list the average scores of the school in terms of GCSE/A level points, % of students getting 5 good GCSEs etc. No special allowances are made for any candidate unless they come from a particularly poorly performing school with a low polar score. There is no intrinsic advantage at being a state school applicant - all cases are assessed on their own merits. Admissions tutors clearly don't treat Henrietta Barnett as being equivalent to a failing comprehensive. Students also have to declare all secondary education so universities can see if a candidate did their GCSEs at a private school/grammar before going on to a different sixth form.

As uilen states, you wouldn't expect a candidtae from grammar school to attract a contextualised offer (unless on quite extreme personal grounds?).

I think the misunderstanding comes from the hoo-ha constantly in the press about pushing Oxbridge to widen access (why always us? The London Universities are just as bad, as is Bristol. Worse, actually!).

Many people think state schooled applicants are given blanket priority.

Which isn't true. The candidiates attracting contextualised offers are IME well deserving. And TBH, they're not that much lower.

That said, the endless pressure to increase the number of state schooled students (or at least to decrease the independently educated ones) will have some affect, even if only on a subconscious level, and grammar schooled applicants might feel an advantage here.

uilen Although even well designed VR tests do discriminate against those with EAL (and Tiffin may indeed have in the past found a away to make them not do, providing you are willing to put your child through years of mindless practise and they were prepared to miss out on the untutored bright ) most of the selective independent schools in London do actually positively want pupils with a wide range of experiences and will make allowances for those parts of the exam process that pupils from other cultures / with EAL might find difficult. As a result there are many children from overseas backgrounds in these schools, many bilingual and when my DD was going through the process with a friend who was bilingual and had spent her formative years in a Russian school they were positively embracing her in the interview room (and her parents were not uber rich ). My children were also educated in International Schools and I agree that it can effect pupils in ways the schools cannot even necessarily appreciate, I was shocked to find my DD didn't know what an acorn was at 11 but of course her knowledge of snakes was exhaustive...... However they do gather a lot of evidence on these children, through different sorts of questions in the English and Maths / NVR / VR / interview, so can build up a much fuller picture than Tiffin can testing 2000 + applicants within the constraints of budgets and the regulatory framework for admissions. The indies never have to explain decisions at appeal......

VR can discriminate in aspects of Brit culture too though, my DD was shocked by a VR question in her Ed Psych assessment (she is Dyslexic) that required a knowledge of wine storage (sorry can't remember exactly but along the lines of hay is to a stack as wine is to a barrel) though she said she did of course get the answer correct having alcoholic parents who had dragged her around wineries from an early age

Yes, I know the private schools take into account background more (my DC attend selective privates). But most people can't afford private schools and I believe selective state schools should be far more careful about unconscious biases in their entrance tests. There is a lot of discussion of the effects of tutoring, rightly so, but far less discussion about other biases in the tests.

VR strongly discriminates in both culture and language. I recall VR questions in which the ranks of the army had to be put in order, for example. Meanwhile my DC easily score in the 99.9+th percentile in (ed psych) verbal tests in their first language but were "only" scoring in the 95th+ in tests in English VR since there were always some words that they just didn't know (but they knew when I translated to their first language).

uilen The use of VR / NVR is actually historic, back in the mid to late twentieth century Grammar Schools were aimed to be a vehicle for social mobility and ability based rather than attainment based testing gave a lot of bright but poorer and disadvantaged pupils a chance of a good education, and a chance to go to university. My mother was one of those, a teacher who grew up in a back to back slum. Even when I was at the "superselective" I had many friends from poor backgrounds, especially immigrant backgrounds, a lot of friends whose family were from Eastern Europe. In fact the 11+ test I did was an IQ test that was much more of NVR than VR (and rather weirdly I was part of something called the Thorne scheme which interviewed us and made us build lego brick towers as well ) The Tiffin selection system seems designed to exclude the bright but poor and immigrant pupils my school included which is why I think it is immoral, even without the experiences abuse inflicted on children by the tutoring factories. However this is a long way from answering OPs question except to question the nature of Tiffin's superselectiveness and value added...........

I think it is part of the OP's question - are superselectives genuinely picking out students of higher ability and potential?

(I am British by the way so I know the history of VR and NVR but in my opinion VR has always discriminated against EAL immigrants and indeed against returning British children who lived abroad and went to schools in the local language.)

uilen but part of the point I was making was that the 11+ IQ tests I and my parents sat were not verbal. Maybe that was because I am from a city which always had a large immigrant community, we almost all had some different cultural background, whether it was Irish, Jewish, Easter European or Muslim, but it was a system that enabled pupils from different cultures and with EAL, and from poor backgrounds to have opportunities, including reaching the highest levels of government, Cabinet even, in the last century. I agree that would be unlikely to happen now.

I think the question OP is wrestling with though is one a lot of parents wrestle with in this area. We have a lot of selective schools around here. Tiny differences in results translate into percieved league tables that place some schools such as LEH, GHS etc. as "superselective" with associated perceptions they are "better" and schools like SHS as somehow inferior and "back ups". Prep and Primary Schools like to be able to say their pupils get places at the"names" whether or not they prepare them. So it feels that there is pressure to send your child to the most selective school they can get into, the one with the best results.

In fact what you are talking about is whether a school is 1st, 10th, 50th or 70th in the country, by its academic results by whatever formula a particular league table choses to measure. However to be in the top 100 schools in the country by any academic measure and to compete in the local market a school has to be providing a good education, and have good teachers, and excellent facilities, extra curricular etc. The most selective schools may tend to attract the brightest but they don't get all the brightest. Pupils develop at different paces, have off days when they sit exams, parents decide they prefer the atmosphere of a less selective school (and it is certainly not a given that the parents of bright pupils apply to Tiffin in the first place, or even accept a place if they get in, there are increasingly good state schools all around) All these schools are sending bright pupils to top universities including Oxford. However the atmospheres in the school are very different and none of these schools suit all the pupils all the time or even all of the pupils some of the time....

There are of course also the perceptions that the "superselective" schools that get the best results are pressured hot houses, filled with pupils with mental health problems and that isn't entirely true of every pupil's experience either.

So with the benefit of hindsight I would recommend going to visit the schools and decide which of all the excellent schools is right for your child.

I had to do VR in the 80s and most of the schools around me (state and private) used VR. My family also recalled doing VR in the 50s/60s so I think it must have varied to some extent by region?

Poison

Part of the problem though is that:

1. Not everyone lives in the catchment for a good secondary
2. Not everyone is able to access good CofE or Catholic schools
3. Not everyone can afford to go private.

Tiffin traditionally has had a huge catchment, though smaller now. If your child is bright enough to be within tutoring distance of a place, and you dont have attractive alternatives you will be tempted to have a go, and if you really need a place you give it all you've got.

Luckily I did not have to watch over my DC as they did years of VR and non VR practice. With a choice it did not seem like an attractive alternative. But then I did have a choice.

Ullen it does n't discriminate against those DCs who are subjected to learning lists of common VR vocab as preparation and are biddable enough to do it I suspect that is not uncommon but for most DCs it would mean a year or more of extra work with less time for playing and exploring. That approach must also fuel the tutor industry for EAL parents who lack confidence in teaching the appropriate vocabulary.

I might add that the choice involved me working full time to help pay fees, and a lot of juggling and budgeting. Swings and roundabouts. I wish I had had more family time. But pleased I have an occupational pension. And glad that the DC had the example of us working hard to secure their education.

A place at Tiffin might have meant more time and energy to support education through good quality family time.

I guess there is no right answer, we all muddle through as best we can. Having said that I don't regret DS narrowly missing a place.

Needmore Absolutely, and as you know your scenario is also mine. It is why I now campaign about our Council's very unfair school place strategies, including providing No 2 at the expense of No 1. I do think though that the tutoring issue has got worse. A few of my DCs contemporaries from Nursery etc did get places at the Tiffins, the only alternative being a failing local school , with minimal practise. However now I gather the intake is even more skewed to those who have been sent to tutoring factories for ever longer times (and it doesn't end after getting in) and the failing local school is now a real alternative as are many of the local comprehensives. However OP is clearly considering private schools, and then I think the decision is a little different.

Wow, thank you so much everyone, lots of words of wisdom and food for thought. Poisonwood, you are absolutely right, I should go with my instincts (and my daughter's) but sometimes, when you decide to swim against the tide, you keep wondering whether you are making a huge mistake!
Titchy, I think you are on track about the outstanding comp - problem is that, in previous years, people slightly closer to the school than we are didn't get a place, so I need to have other choices up our sleeve anyway!
And I couldn't agree more about reasoning tests being culturally biased. It's not just VR. I come from a country where people don't even know what badminton is (let alone play it) and 'failed' one of the NVR questions for 6-7 years old that my youngest child once brought home from school because I had never seen a shuttlecock before in my life!

As well as cultural bias I would also add SEN. DD was hundreds of places off an offer from Tiffin Girls despite far more practice than her brother. (We knew she would have problems at 11+ so used Tiffin as a trial run for other external exams.)

She is quite dyslexic and her scores on the different papers would have been very unbalanced. We did not try, but I am almost certain that they would have been pleased to offer her a sixth form place, and would, quite possibly, have then placed her in the top maths set. The very selective schools are often effectively looking for kids who are good at everything. There are plenty of kids who have a real flair for maths or English, who won't get over the super-selective 11+ hurdle.

To the OP. Super Selectives add a lot of value in so far as they stretch the very bright cohort therein. They do not necessarily bring them along and add value; rather they work with very good inputs (Y7 students) and stretch them unbelievably hard to attain the highest gcse and A 2 scores