The Times article about selective schools

[equilibro]

i.e the calibre of the children it attracts.

Amen to that; hence hurrah for grammar schools!

So is HBS the top performing school in the country BECAUSE 80% of its children are from ethnic minorities?

I always think, you might feel too simplistically, that failure in any field of human endeavour can be attributed to one or more of ignorance, indolence, and impotence (in the non-******** sense). It seems to me that ethnic minorities, taken generally, are better able to circumvent these obstacles, and more power to their elbow say I.

[2Girlsmum]

...and remember they might take the top girls from their list who have placed it 1st choice, but in North London most children never even try for selectives because their chances are so low of gaining a place, and parents don't want them to feel that they have failed if they don't, and maybe the culturally different attitude to success and failure is why so few UK/ European families don't try? At our local schools about 10% sit the 11+ which means that the top 10% is more like the top 1%. Well done to those who have succeed, but a representative cultural mix is important IMHO. Our GS is listed as one of the most ethnically mixed, and yes, I'm aware it's limited to catholic girls, but the ethnic balance is similar to that of north London with dozens of nationalities and languages spoken. Almost every girl there is a mix of different nationalities, including ours:)

[Proud_Dad]

I always think, you might feel too simplistically, that failure in any field of human endeavour can be attributed to one or more of ignorance, indolence, and impotence (in the non-******** sense). It seems to me that ethnic minorities, taken generally, are better able to circumvent these obstacles, and more power to their elbow say I.

Yes, unfortunately you do think too simplistically. Despite your clever use of alliteration you seem unable to understand the simple logic of the selection system.

A typical GS selection system might select the top 25% of children (based on the 11+ test). Children are not refused a place because they are considered too ignorant, indolent or impotent to benefit from a Grammar School education. They fail to gain a place purely because they happen to fall in the bottom 75% of the population. However knowledgeable, hardworking and capable every child might be there will always be winners and losers because by simple mathematics you can never have a situation where everyone is in the top 25%.

To put it another way, Roger Federer did not lose this year's Wimbledon final because he is untalented, lazy and hadn't trained hard enough. He lost, because on the day, Djokovic was just that little bit better.

[equilibro]

They fail to gain a place purely because they happen to fall in the bottom 75% of the population.

Quite so, and you make my point for me. Their impotence is their inability, their powerlessness if you like. They do not have the IQ, or the mathematical or other aptitude that is required, and hence they are all too obviously impotent i.e. powerless in that regard.

[Guest55]

You have a lot of confidence in the selection process! My experience would suggest that the test often gets it wrong.

I think the racist overtones detract from the discussion and are, imho, not needed and offensive.

[2Girlsmum]

Their impotence is their inability, their powerlessness if you like. They do not have the IQ, or the mathematical or other aptitude that is required, and hence they are all too obviously impotent i.e. powerless in that regard.

Well that's quite a statement

Quite a few children in our neck of the super-selective woods (with fairly average IQ's ) are drilled and tutored from an early age and scrape passes. They then need private tutors to keep up. This is especially true of a certain boys school. At the same time many children with high IQ's don't even sit the test because their parents don't want to put pressure on their children, who only have a 1/10 chance of passing at best. Other children with high IQ sit the test with little preparation and either pass or fail if they don't know 11+ technique. They may be brilliant mathematicians, but have not been taught well. One local school, Latymer, used a NVR test for many years as the first round to hopefully catch the brighter, but less tutored children. As I'm sure you know, scores in NVR can only be raised about 10-15% because it's basically an IQ test.

[Jazz-UK]

Fully agree with 2Girlsmum, but kudos to equilibro for sticking with the "I" word. Word of the month or week possibly?

Personally I restrain from using it, in fear of clogging up my browser with ads for V......

[Amber]

Quite so, and you make my point for me. Their impotence is their inability, their powerlessness if you like. They do not have the IQ, or the mathematical or other aptitude that is required, and hence they are all too obviously impotent i.e. powerless in that regard.

That is hugely offensive. What the 'failures' often lack is the cultural capital to work the system to their advantage. They don't take the tests in the first place, quite often. If you think that it is the children with the highest IQs who get into selective school you are sadly misguided.

What is even more offensive is your implicit assumption that people with high IQs or great mathematical aptitude are worthy of the 'power' (in its use as the opposite of impotence) which a selective education will confer on them. Impotence isn't something people choose - it is something which an unfair or disadvantageous set of conditions delivers upon them. Ignorance, another of your key terms, means 'not knowing' - why should children be punished for that? (Indolence? Can't be bothered to reply to that one. ). If people are happy to accept that some, by an accident of birth, somehow 'deserve' fewer opportunities than others, then where will it end? Eugenics perhaps? Let's not waste our precious resources on people who will never be able to make the most of them.

I am actually not sure you are serious but I truly hope not.

[southbucks3]

Are there any statistics to show how many white children actually sit the tests for these particular schools?

I am actually amazed we are referring to white v ethnic minority in broad sweeping stereotypes on this forum.
A child's performance in the 11+, gcse, or A Levels is down to hard work, motivation and perseverance in some cases, but others it is just down to pure ability.

Work hard, play hard, live life to the full, before your body starts deteriorating, childhood fun and games, teen dreaminess, dancing, socialising, adult adventures and courting.
Can that academically high achieving child go and watch a home footy game until 10pm with a big group of his year seven mates, get up and finish of a bit of honework quickly before school, hand it in and still get an A grade.....no? Well if yes, he is streets ahead, if he gets a B grade he is still ahead, but needs to organise his homework time carefully around his social life to boost his grades. Should the child not have the abity to do both then surely he must choose and be allowed to choose what is most important to him, but bear in mind that there are negative consequences of either route not just the poor grades route.

Oh btw, son number three came to a dinner party with us the Saturday before his 11+, thoroughly enjoyed exploring a new garden with new friends and his bruvs, chilled out, watched a DVD whilst we boring adults dined and drank too much wine, then had the double excitement of a night bike ride home. He won't be going to the top achieving school in the uk, but he will be going to the gs school that gave out the free footy tickets.

"Weak,, lazy, ignorant ten year olds lose out on places at top schools to the powerful elbow of ethnic minorities" hmmm, surprised the Times didn't go with that alternative headline, it's so catchy, even without the alliteration and peculiar use of a somewhat evolved word.

[2Girlsmum]

Has anyone read the full article? What date was it published in hard copy?