When parents are slagging off the local comp...

[Everyoneafter3]

I've posted before about my concerns over the local secondary, which, thanks to comments on this board and an excellent recent Ofsted, are very much allayed. I had a very good read of school newsletters etc and am much happier. Dd1 (Y4) is musically gifted and will also audition for a specialist music school.

The area in which we live is very affluent: many children round here go to fee-paying independent schools. These dc are going to school and telling my dd (and others) that the local secondary is rubbish ("my mum and dad say..."). One particularly stupid parent has said at home that "no child of mind will set foot in x school" which of course is coming back home with our dd.

Dd1 has now got it into her head that the local school is terrible, that she's really upset to go to not a good school, that she wishes we weren't poor (we're not! But no, we can't afford independent school fees without having to sacrifice other stuff we prioritise as a family). She's been researching exam results and all sorts.

For our part we've said well look at any local school she'd like to, although as we live across the road from the school in question it'd be unlikely that she'd get in.

I'm heartily sick of parents telling their dc how awful the local school is. It's simply not fair. My dc won't receive a 'lesser' education. They aren't going to a 'rubbish' school. If this continues I'm tempted to speak to their current primary school tbh. What else can I do? I've told dd to not listen, we've looked at the school website, talked about results (!) but I'm at a loss.

Alyosha, your points are very interesting and I'm sure you're right to question why these grammars get lower Oxbridge numbers (and indeed a governor I know at QEB has been working on this very issue) but I do take issue with your assertion that everybody would go to a grammar over a private were they to get in (with Westminster, SPGS as exceptions) and secondly that the parental profile is identical.

I know dozens of parents who have chosen a private school over a guaranteed place at one of the North London grammars. I even, shock, know a child who turned down a place at one of them for your most reviled private school, Forest. The vast majority of parents at my child's independent secondary school don't ever know of the grammar schools' existence. That I know of, only three kids in their class even tried for the grammars (one got in, the other two didn't).

We would have opted for the grammars if our child had got in so I'm not necessarily in agreement with these parents. However, my rejected child (who got into City, Highgate etc with ease) is the sort of child who one might bet on to get an Oxbridge place - all the cousins (from non-selective comps) go there, we did, exceptionally good in one subject, getting academically stronger every year having started very immature in primary.

More anecdotes. I have a friend with children in one of the North London grammars and one at City. She cannot believe the vast difference in family background. The child at the grammar has been bullied for having a 'big house', while the parents are all arranging networking drinks with one another at City (which is by reputation the most 'mixed' London private). Another kid I know at QEB says everyone in his class wants to be a dentist, doctor or accountant. When it was Diwali, he was one of only three boys in class that day.

Where the parental profiles differ, you can bet that it's exactly these differences that prize Oxbridge (rightly or wrongly).

Ontopof - of course there's no way to know that any school definitely has the top 1% or whatever.

I just think it's clear that the London elite grammars have a far more able intake than most of the private schools.

The number of applicants per place though is a pretty meaningless statistic as we don't know how qualified many of them were. Lots of them aren't in with a chance.

I think you're right that the bottom of the N London grammar intake is far higher than the bottom of the N London selective independent - there's definitely a greater range of abilities at privates (something that personally I prefer).

However, at the top Oxbridgey end, I'm not so sure there's much difference...

Claire, I think your post bolsters what I am saying.

Most parents who apply for grammars will choose grammars. Most children who get into privates would not be offered places at grammars.

I 100% understand why someone would choose Forest - I think it adds incredible value and is a great school. It takes not very bright kids and gets them good results & get them into oxbridge - but it's a scandal that they do that at the expense of more able state school kids.

I think private schools have changed a lot in the past 10 years and have become even more elite, which probably does change the parental mix. But changing the parental wealth mix shouldn't change oxbridge, because all parents who bother to enter their kids for grammars care deeply about university, and I'm sure, value Oxbridge. And it's not just oxbridge - indies outdo grammars in the rest of the Russell group too.

"The number of applicants per place though is a pretty meaningless statistic as we don't know how qualified many of them were. Lots of them aren't in with a chance."

Really disagree. Just having parents who enter you for these tests means you are likely to sit in the top 50% of parental involvement, which as we know, highly correlates with ability.

So if you take all those kids and only 1 in 20 get in - you're selecting the top of the top, the top 1% or 0.5% of ability as we currently understand it.

I'm willing to concede that Westminster scholars are probably at a similar level as those who get into HBS.

So the top 1% or 0.5% of ability and only 66% of them manage an A* in their English Language GCSE? Must be pretty shocking teaching.

I'm sure they're all clever children. With no firmer grasp on statistics than you, I would guess that they will all be in the top 10%, possibly most in the top 5% and a good number I'm sure in the top 1 or 2%. But there is a massive industry of tutoring for the grammar school tests, particularly the VR and the NVR part; some children are tutored for years just learning vocabulary words and how to spot what NVR type it is.

Alyosha if you were able to examine the 11+ results from HB I'd bet my bottom dollar that year in year out there are a large number of applicants who have shown in their scores they weren't in with a chance. That's just how it works.

And as we all know, Ontopof, no one is ever tutored for private school exams ;)

I agree with you on the teaching. I think grammar schools are shocking for adding value. They should be the best schools in the country but they're not - I think some state schools like KSA actually do better with much poorer ability intakes. It's easy to coast as a grammar school.

Of course goodbye! I'm sure lots don't have a chance, but there are very few kids applying by themselves. It's parent directed, ergo the parents are by definition involved, which immediately boosts the attainment profile of those applying.

I also think there are significant negative effects of being the brightest child in primary school to an average - below average child in 2ndry school, which is why it's probably better to be the top child in an average comp than no.93 of 93 in HBS.

However none of this changes the fact that HBS girls are some of the most able girls in the country. The top 0.5-1% of ability as we measure it today, really.

Well, I'm sure most of them are very clever but I don't believe for a moment they are all in the top 1% of the ability range - even it were possible to agree on how exactly you would define that. A blunt exam at 10 or 11 can't spot the talented linguists or the subtle historians or the philosophically agile.

And if they really are all that clever, it's probably not a very good school based on the results, which would of course explain your Oxbridge conundrum.

Of course many children are tutored for private school exams, but historically the private school exams tended to be more nuanced and less focused on VR/NVR.

Grammar schools use VR & NVR as they claim this is a pure measure of academic ability, that no one can tutor for (ha!).

HBS still has some of the very best a level results in this country (as they bloody should have!), yet they still underperform.

The bigger issue is that kids who achieve well in grammars are less likely to get into all good unis, oxbridge & russell group, than their private school peers.

Now why is that?

Is it because grammars are coasting? Probably not, as comps do even worse.

Or is it because of something structural in elite uni admissions?

Ontopof, clearly HBS' 23 applicants per place all drawn from exceptionally involved parents is not enough to convince you that the HBS girls are in the top 1% of our country.

Perhaps you will admit they are at least the equals of the elite private schools?

Alyosha I disagree goodbye - HBS are selecting from 23 candidates for every place.

Only 300 DCs go through to the second stage test at HBS. I'm pretty sure a DC needs to be in that 300 to stand any chance of a place at the school. If 2,000 are actually listing the school on their CAF they are being pretty unrealistic about their chances.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what they have stated in their admissions Policy?

Alyosha, I think you place far too much faith in the ability of an 11+ exam to identify the truly able. There's no way that it finds the top 1%. It finds the most prepped/lucky on the day/mature at a particular moment in time 7 years before university entrance. Those VR and NVR can be trained for - there are long lists of words that the most motivated learn. What it finds is the top 10% of scorers in an exam - that is not the same as intelligence, though I agree that the vast majority of those who even apply are top table types (though I do know others who've just turned up for a punt).

You're misreading my post. I said I know parents who have actually got grammar places who've given them up in favour of independent places. Also some of the kids who haven't tried for grammars are phenomenally clever (most aren't obv!) - it's just not the same pool of applicants.

I'm certain that the girls at HBS are all clever.

But the selection process is nothing like the private sector. At 16 there is no test to join HBS whereas there are several at Westminster and other comparable private schools.

And hardly any of my DC's peers tried for the grammar schools. Just not on the radar for them.

it's a scandal that they do that at the expense of more able state school kids.

You're basing this entire argument on the fallacy that children who do well in the 11+ are the brightest and most able - some are, but some aren't. We're talking about an exam that's taken when children are 10 and 11 years old, that many are heavily tutored for for years, that involves box ticking, which is not always a predictor of truly original and creative thought which is what the best universities are looking for. Though these poor deprived HBS girls still seem to do OK looking at their leavers' list, which shows an extremely pukka list of destinations and subjects.

And btw I not only know people who turned down grammar school places for private, I also know people who didn't bother applying to grammar and chose to send their children to the local, not particularly brilliant, comp because they didn't want to go through 11+ stress. Grammars are not for everyone

There's no true way to select the 1% most able kids - no one can do it with any certainty.

But as we currently understand ability, the 93 girls that make it through the 2 tiered examination system, through the 1st exam and then teh 2nd (I didn't even get through the 1st tier but got into SHHS), will be some of the most able girls in the country.

I don't accept that VR/NVR is any less valid than the methods used by private schools to select for ability. They both are highly open to manipulation & tutoring.

Lala - you're right, I don't think Grammars are great, the country would be better off with no grammars & no private schools.

But grammars, especially elite ones, give us an interesting microcosm of bias in university admissions.

Two schools, similar in A level results, demographics and ambition get two different results...

And indeed two systems, with similar results, get very different oxbridge & elite grammar entry stats...the question is why?

If elite grammar kids can't get in and no one knows why then what chance do we have to widen access up more for kids from comps have?

2ndly kids who go to Forest are in all measures less bright than the HBS & other elite grammar kids. worse GCSEs, worse A levels...but their uni admissions are really good.

Not as good as HBS, but better than most grammar schools out there.

So alyosha you don't think tests specifically designed by a school to test a 16 year olds potential in a number of specific subjects will be more accurate than a 10 year old taking The 11+?

Really?

This is bigger than just Westminster - but no, as it happens, I don't think Westminster's odd tests are more accurate than looking at the A*s a kid has + a report from their old school, which is what HBS 6 form does.

For the other private schools that don't have big 16+ entries, they still do better than the elite grammars, most of them relying on 11+ selection (girls) or 13+ (boys).

What these parents don't seem to realise is that the message they are sending to parents whose children go to the local secondary school is "I don't want my children at school with the likes of yours". It's jaw-droppingly arrogant.

I know a woman DadOnIce who objected to the children from a local state primary taking part in a joint activity with her ds' private school class. She is a dreadful, dreaful woman and the irony is that her own children are incredibly thick.