Who are the 1-5% of children failing to achieve the minimum standard at most of the best independent and selective schools?

[Timeisaflatcircle]

Just curious to know as the best secondary schools around here never seem to achieve 100% rate 5 A star-C including English and Maths.

Our son is bright yet borderline (we think) for Wilsons grammar and Wallington grammar schools which are to the south of where we rent in Clapham. There is also a bells and whistles, all singing all dancing Elizabethan independent which is within walking distance, Emanuel School.

So I was giving this a bit of thought...

This 1-5% of children are

A) Tutored for several years to pass an 11+ /CE exam but their regular primary or prep school performance is quite a bit below top of the class/cohort

B) Hormones/bereavement/personal issues of some kind which interfere with their performance in GCSE exams

C) A child who is extremely bright at 10 y/o might not develop and remain extremely bright by GCSE age

D) The 11+/CE exams are very different to GCSEs and therefore a child who excels at 11+/CE papers might not excel at GCSEs

E) The standard of teaching and highly bright cohort at top inde or GS inevitably means that some children will be left behind

I'm sorry if what I have said is an oversimplification of the factors at play. I am very interested to the views of educators, tutors, teachers or other professionals

In my experience they are often the ones go have emotional or personal issues in the GCSE years or an attitude not conducive to learning. Remember too that they might have got 9s in everything but only a 4 in maths, and then they'd be in the 5% despite having generally excellent results.

It’s only 1 or 2 children! The same happens at the Grammars where I live. Over tutoring can certainly be a factor and children getting sick to the back teeth of pushy parents! There are numerous reasons and it’s always been the same. Choosing at 11 isn’t an accurate science.

1-2 children isn't many and there may be a reason why they don't achieve.

Of the top of my head among my friends at school and my friends' dc, reasons they might not:

Dad died in the middle of the exams.
Missed flight back after half term, and thought the exam was the afternoons didn't worry (until the call saying where are you the exam's in an hour)
Panicked and just made a hash of the first exam
Badly dyslexic, and performs well aurally, so private school agreed to take as they felt they could help (they did, but no powers were going to get through English)
Missed out 2 pages in the middle of the exam

When I was at school, there were incredibly sporty and or arty girls who were severely dyslexic and or dyscalculic.
Plenty of good grades but probably not a “good pass” in Maths.

Also, you can never account for pupils who forget a whole section of the paper or answer on the wrong novel/poem.

It's mainly (if not exclusively) B plus a few unexpected fuck ups on the day.

i've just looked at Emanuel 2018 GCSE results. 98.7% pass (C or higher in old money). With 126 pupils taking 9 or 10 subjects (call it 10 for easier arithmetic) that is 16 exams not passed.

I think they can be seen as bad luck/anomaly/exceptional circumstances in a school with 63% A*/A/9/8/7, and in subjects on new grading, 15% 9 (nationally 4%).

I wouldn't be surprised if it broke down similarly in the other schools you name.

No,school can guarantee that every pupil, no matter how well prepared, won't do something bizarre on the day.

Why are you worried about it op?

No school can guarantee 100% get 100% of their exams. If you want that then you seem to be searching for some sort of Orwellian/dystopian educational system.

Unexpected stuff ups, having teenager moments or emotional problems at the wrong time or undiagnosed learningbproblems making themselves clear under exam pressure.
There is very little one can do to prevent these poor grades apart from sacking the children before they take their exams to massage the figures. This happpens in lots of schools in my experience and seems unethical to me.

It’s really fascinating that most people have said ‘B’ so far.

I honestly thought it would be average ability/slightly above average ability being drilled in tutoring and mock testing for the exams, especially in the 11+.

We have friends with slightly older children who do 11+ practice every evening but who are no more than middle attainers at their state primary.

Even with middle attainers, surely if they are capable of passing 11+ with tuition they would be capable of passing their GCSEs (maybe also with tuition). I would also assume B.

B.

I think most children who achieve highly at age 10 (even if tutored) can get at least a C (or whatever if is now) at GCSE level -especially if they are st an academic school where they will continue to be well prepared.

The school I went to did get 100% A*-C in GCSES for my year, so I know some do!

Because sometimes kids fuck up? That's life. Deffo B.

My son was one of two children in his grammar not to pass English GCSE at grade 4
In his case it was none if the above. It was high functioning autism with accompanying communication difficulties, compounded by issues with processing speed and severe anxiety.

I think many of the "failures" will have an anxiety- based reason. My child is very clever.

(the other "failure" was also autistic btw, though plenty of autistic kids did pass).

B I think. DS’s best friend would be recorded as a failure on those statistics. He’s at a very academic school but spent most of year 11 in hospital. No way to predict it at time of admission. Bear in mind that you can’t simply get into the most competitive schools by coaching a dim child hard because there are so many bright and very bright children who are also being coached. You have to be both reasonably able and somewhat schooled in exam technique.