Selective education, Kent's 11 plus and Grammar School system

Is it really the majority that don't sit it in Kent? Certainly not at our school, the vast majority do sit it, and usually about 30% pass.

I will see if I can get some figures.

I think the fact that people are arguing about the differences between 'the kind of people who fail' and the people who pass shows the unpleasantness of the whole system.

I don't think anybody said that at all. There are 3 sorts of children in Kent; the majority who do not sit the Kent Test. These children have not failed because they didn't take the test. The minority who do take the test, of whom some pass and some fail.

The parents who seem to get the most agitated and demand an end to the system are this third group, those who took it and failed. 'The kind of people they are' is sore losers.

As someone else said, to say that the high schools are bad so we should close the grammars is nonsense.

sunshield - girls are much better catered for, in both number of grammar places and non selective school choices, than boys in West/NW Kent.

I live in Bucks and have two DDs at grammar and a DS at a upper school (high) . The system is similar to Kent's but I think the 'modern' schools are generally better. However, i have experience of Kent's system via my sisters two DDs and the 'crazy' at all cost West Kent coaching that goes in.

I would like to say though that despite both girls passing, elder one to Tonbridge (yr12) IB younger one Weald (yr9) sister was very enthused about Hillview school for girls. DD2 could not make her mind up whether to go to grammar or Hillview , in the end the only reason they choose Weald was because it would be easier to change from grammar.

It is quite possible she could go to Hillview for sixth form as the outstanding film 'studio' set up there is something she would love to do.

The point is even in Kent there are some good non selective schools that offer different and in Hilview's case excellent opportunities.

Kent borders East Sussex which is fully comprehensive but many of the comprehensive schools in East Sussex are no better than the secondary moderns in Kent. In fact most of the modern schools in Kent are actually rated 'good' or better; if you've moved into the catchment of a poorly performing modern school by chance then you would just as likely have moved into the catchment of a poorly performing comprehensive school, especially around the coast.

I think you are being naïve op - 'middle class mums' are generally not looking to send their dc to 'regular comprehensive' schools; not with free school meal rates of 15-20% or more. If grammar schools were not available in Kent, 'middle class mums' would be looking to move into the catchment of 'high performing' comprehensives (or applying to faith schools as the best performing comprehensive school in East Sussex is a Catholic school) with low fsm rates and probably not in the same catchment area as you've found yourself in but half a mile up the road in the 'right' catchment. This is exactly what happens in Surrey and Hampshire as well.

From what I have seen the new Kent test is far from tutor proof. It is undoubtedly better than what was before which was 100% coachable, VR laughably so, at least now with the English any tutoring is at least relevant to the national curriculum.

In terms of cost, many pupils in the superselectives in Kent attended private primary, which teach 11+ in the classroom, which state is forbidden from doing. Which is madness, when the idea is that grammar should be available to all. Of course there are a few who have had no input save a very involved knowledgeable parent who has sat with them and done a couple of practice papers. In fact, if you believed everything you read on MN then all the top scorers would be kids who had only ever seen one practice paper and didn't "need" a tutor. In reality, lots of people pay for a tutor once a week in Y5 or do the equivalent practice with their kids themselves in the year leading up. So that the playing field is levelled somewhat with the private kids.

It's all utter bollocks.

Sorry X-post with many re coaching.

There's also the issue of coaching for the test. It's a massive industry and beyond the budget of many ordinary families. The grammar schools themselves are concerned about it because it leads to brighter pupils missing out and over-coached pupils struggling.

There is no reason at all why all abilities can't be educated successfully under the same roof. All the comprehensives I know of set by ability, sometimes from the start of Yr 7. Pupils move up and down between sets and late developers often overtake the early high-flyers.

Schilke, I agree. I went to Grammar school in Kent, and now look at the system with a more critical eye. Unfortunately I live in Kent with a 4 year old DD. I do not want her junior school years to include a tutor, and be pressured. I'd like it to be how it was in the 80s, when I did a test, had an extra playtime and got into grammar school. I was completely unaware of the process or the stakes, and no one had a tutor.

I often wonder what would happen if the system was flipped. Everyone sat a test and those who scored lowest were taught at different schools - schools which supported and encouraged those who were struggling rather than hand out special teaching to those who find it easier in the first place.

Now that is a great idea.

I appreciate that not all high schools are great, but plenty are. I don't see that crap high schools will improve with the removal of grammar schools. Surely people should be campaigning to ensure all high schools are good rather than try to remove the grammars which are providing the sort of education that every child should be able to access. That smacks of the politics of envy.

I grew up in Kent and went to a grammar school. This was a time of no tutors. My 2 older brothers went to the comprehensive - except of course it's not is it? I quite enjoyed my school life, but now look back at the system with horror. I'm pleased I now live in a place with no selective tests.

I often wonder what would happen if the system was flipped. Everyone sat a test and those who scored lowest were taught at different schools - schools which supported and encouraged those who were struggling rather than hand out special teaching to those who find it easier in the first place.

Personally, I'm not in favour at all. Just had friends to stay for the weekend and they are gearing up for 11+. There's a tutor for this and another for that. He has to pass because the alternative, apparently, is unbearable to even contemplate. It's sad.

So I'd vote for it, but when (partially) in the system still finding it hard not to "work" system for my DCs benefit. iyswim

Not all "high schools" in Kent are decent though, Squirrel. There are pockets of Kent, like Paddock Wood, that aren't overly affected by the grammar exodus, but others, especially in the north west of the county, are a different matter altogether.

If you're a boy that fails the test in my neck of the woods, you have not a hope in hell of appeal at a grammar. One of my DSs good friends working way above NC Levels, L6 Maths in Y6 etc, top table since y1, sharp as a tack, failed. Parents can't afford to move or private, option for him not good. Makes me angry. One test, one day, one chance so say the Bond books. To decide a childs future education on one day is shit, no matter which way you cut it.

I think comprehensive with streaming could be best system overall. Also with plenty subject choices and some "fluidity" so you can go up or down streams if you are able to.

But as a hypocrite -

I don't live near Kent but have option of either very successful (results-wise) and good ethos/pastoral small grammar school which we are in catchment for
vs
good large comprehensive with mixed ability (some in catchment area with good grades will do 11+ and travel further to the grammar school so this brings average down a bit) but overall still has some pupils with good grades. Some are out of catchment for grammar and just go.

I know this is a lucky situation to be in.

My DC prob could pass 11+ and get into the grammar. But still not sure whether to let them sit 11+ as we would then be adding to problem. In the class a few will go to grammar but most will go to comprehensive.

Thanks, Rash. At least for selective private and grammar schools in the greater London area (ie, I am less familiar with other regions), I thought the 11+ exams were principally about identifying potential (in that case, more of an IQ test, unless I have the wrong understanding of an IQ test).

When I went to a Kent grammar school in 1971 there was a fabulous mix if children. Girls whose parents were doctors, solicitors, farmers, hoteliers, bus drivers, nurses, postmen, farm labourers, carpenters, decorators, plumbers, shop workers, bank clerks, and unemployed. There was no tutoring. It was fair and diverse. The sec mods then only did CSEs so there has been an improvement since then. The children who didn't go to grammar school were generally less bright although there were always those on the borderline who felt cheated.

In many middle class families the brighter children went to grammar school; the less bright to the local indys.

My DH went to a former grammar school in Leeds in 1972. It was the first year it had a comp intake. At the end if seven years it bore no resemblance to the previously excellent school. It closed a few years after that.

Just because not all children can be in the top 25% or academic why dies that mean the brightest shouldn't have an academic education.

The issue is the tutoring and the scarcity of grammar places. They need to be brought back across the board, vocational quals and careers need to be better valued and the tutoring needs to cease ir be provided equitably at primary level.

I live in Kent and all 3 of mine passed the 11+. 2 went to grammar and 1 went to a high school because we felt he wouldn't cope with the pressure at grammar.

They have changed the test recently to make it "tutor-proof". Proof will be in the eating I suspect.

Not all high schools in grammar areas are crap. My ds' school is very good. In fact this area has some outstanding high schools as well as grammars.

If you don't like the grammar system, why did you have your child enter the exam? It's not compulsory as it used to be.

In very basic terms, ability is current. So in this context, the test should be an accurate reflection of a students current Maths and English ability. So in an ideal test, a score might reflect the childs current NC level ha!

Potential or capability as it is sometime called, is a future prediction.

Please help me understand, in the 11+ context, what is the difference between "potential" and "ability"? They appear to be synonymous.

A pressure group tried for many years to get a referendum from Kent parents. Their attempts failed because the only parents interested were those whose children failed the Kent test.

I find your attitude breathtakingly arrogant. You moved to Kent and didn't know about the grammar system? Then because you cocked up you think no-one else should get to go?
fwiw my 4 grew up in Kent. 2 went to grammar and 1 went to a High School. I wish everywhere else had grammars too because where we are now is selection by postcode / house price which is much less fair.

An IQ test is an IQ test, and the 11+ isn't!