11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist

@Tiredalwaystired "Anywhere where the 11+ isn’t compulsory in the county or region."

The 11+ is not compulsory in Kent. However, there a no comprehensive schools
In Kent.

Also worth making the point that many grammars quietly discard a portion of their pupils at 16, re-recruiting high attainers at GCSE from non-grammars to boost their A level and destination results - a tacit acknowledgment that the 11+ process plus the intervening 5 years (of supposedly ‘better’ teaching) is a deeply imperfect tool for identifying those who will do best at 18.

Further to @Rivett 's post earlier, it's also worth reiterating that there is plentiful data indicating that the vast majority of DCs experience peaks and troughs in their educational achievements. It is profoundly incorrect to assume those who do best at 10 are going to do best at 16, 18 or 21.

There are myriad reasons for this, ranging from a chaotic home life to parent(s) who are unable or unwilling to offer support, to the quality of primary school attended and the teaching therein etc etc. The older DCs get the more they can compensate for these issues through independent study and access to the necessary resources . At 10, that isn't usually possible.

And for exactly this reason it is ridiculous to dismiss a child’s ability because they’ve attended a comprehensive.

It is dependent on ‘micro area’.

I would say Gloucestershire has many ‘near comprehensives’, including some very good ones.

However, Gloucester and Stroud, where the remaining grammars are congregated in greater numbers, have ‘other’ schools that are less comprehensive and more secondary modern like.

Anywhere where the 11+ isn’t compulsory in the county or region.

For example there are grammar schools in and around London but also lots of comprehensive schools. Taking the 11+ for entry to the grammar is entirely optional.

@Tiredalwaystired "Comps exist in areas with optional grammar schools too. Many, many parents choose not to put their bright kids through the 11+ because they prefer the ethos of the comp."
Which areas do you mean?

Comps exist in areas with optional grammar schools too. Many, many parents choose not to put their bright kids through the 11+ because they prefer the ethos of the comp.

Of course that school is going to have kids as bright (or brighter) than some of the grammar school kids. It’s perfectly possible to leave a comprehensive with straight 9s/A*s

If you base it on SATs then you will create a new set of problem.

DD's primary in London got stellar results in SATs at every stage - but they also did targeted after school help for any child who wasn't going to get top resuts. (Also did free 11+ coaching for any child sitting for grammar or private schools).

Other schools within a few hundred metres didn't get anything like the same SAT scores. You'd end up with 80% of one primary qualifying and 10% of another.

Not sure teachers would thank you either - can you imagine the pressure from parents if a grammar place was SAT dependent?

Though not necessarily ‘catch them up’ - this may not be relevant or appropriate- more provide an outstanding education carefully matched to their needs, abilities and aptitudes, including an open path back into ‘mainstream 70%’ education at any point.

Exactly.

It does depend on the number and selectivity of the grammar schools.

This school is technically a secondary modern (being one of the ‘other’ schools in an area with grammars). However, its intake is unusually privileged and results significantly surpass many, many ‘true’ comprehensives.

www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/136474

I always think a truly civilised society would take the bottom 30% at 11 and give them an outstanding, tailored education to catch them up.

Where I live everyone absolutely does call the non-grammar schools 'secondary moderns'. 'Comprehensive' would be an inaccurate description because they aren't comprehensive, they are not teaching the 25-30% of DCs who are in the grammar schools!

Great analogy and definitely agree - and more evidence of why it's so important that every child should get the same opportunities in education. Which is why I'm for changing the whole system, including private schools..

It always makes me laugh when people suggest that the kids who go to a grammar are more intelligent than the kids at the local comp. Some will be of course but certainly not all.

It’s like someone training 2 years for a marathon and their opponent is someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to train, through no fault of their own. Yes the one who trained will do better of course but don’t make the mistake of assuming they are better, it’s because they’ve had access to training.

If they both had the same access and chances, then wouldn’t it be interesting to see who won, only then can you say who is the ‘best’

Surely all children should receive the same standard of education?! ( a good standard with good teachers) That doesn’t mean I think they should all be taught in
the same class!

Most schools use streaming, so whilst they all begin at the same starting point and learn the same things, set 1 work a lot faster and set 5 won’t ever get to the higher level work.

If a child in a lower set is working well there is opportunities for them to move up accordingly. That’s a fairer system than segregation at 11.

There will be kids in the top sets of comprehensive schools that are higher ability than kids in lower sets of that Grammars. They all do GCSE’s after all.

The 20% would change if tutoring wasn’t allowed or every child had the opportunity to be tutored….

I wonder why grammar provision isn’t just based on SATS results than a devised test?

Then it would come from a more level place and primarys are supporting this anyway

Im not pro grammar but if they have to exist this seems a better approach. Perhaps tied to an interview for borderline acceptance level pupils.

This - I’ve got 3 DC , only one ( the middle ) passed . The youngest 4 years later still feels ‘less than ‘ .

That said the Grammar is 100% the best environment for DS2. He was bored in year 6 at primary and probably would have been in state comprehensive . They do work at a faster pace in the Grammar.

By all means put everyone in the same school - but don’t treat everyone the same - that’s wasting both skill sets and disadvantaging both .

@CurlewKate It is a comprehensive school as it does not select students on the basis of a selective test, it is open to all. If you mean I should call it a secondary modern, I’ve been teaching for over 10 years and have never heard that term used professionally or by other parents, only on mumsnet! We are an averaged sized town with 3 grammars in just about striking distance (with a lengthy commute for some) so some parents choose to put their DC in for the 11+ but many do not. And it IS a truly comprehensive school. We have some kids getting a string of 9s and some who do well to get 4s. We cater for all abilities.

Are you really comparing prep for the 11+ with OT and pastoral care?! Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?!

@dyedinthewoolcheeseeater no, I did not make the comparison, it was implicit in the comment my post was responding to which stated:

The thing is that it would be totally inappropriate for any primary school to dedicate sufficient resource to an activity that only 20% of the pupils will benefit from, to the detriment of the rest, and where nothing equivalent exists that the other 80% can benefit from.

The post above clearly states that any provision that might benefit 20% of pupils and not be beneficial to the other 80% is an inappropriate use of resources so nobody should get it. This approach would be catastrophic. I provided a list of numerous examples demonstrating that such a viewpoint is ridiculous, and indeed schools do already provide targeted support of many different kinds - both academic support and other kinds of support - to specific small percentages of a cohort who will benefit from that specific resource based on their own needs and abilities, so it makes no logical sense to claim this should be provided in some circumstances but would be "inappropriate" in others.

Indeed, providing such resources of whatever nature to each child to achieve their potential is a crucial part of a school's basic purpose, whatever the child's skills, abilities, talents, difficulties or needs happen to be. The nature of the resource required to ensure each child maximises their potential is irrelevant to the principle that it is the school's role to identify the appropriate resources to achieve that aim and provide them to the children who will benefit from them.

@Neveragain35 "I teach in a comprehensive school in an area with 3 grammar schools. For me one of the biggest issues with the 11+ is the effect it has on the children who don’t pass. So many children starting secondary already feeling like a failure because they didn’t pass a test at 10 years old"

So you don't actually teach in a comprehensive school at all.

I strongly agree.

It’s a really good point actually that grammar schools can actually mean different things in different places so some of the debate is arguing about apples rather than oranges eg. A fully grammar county like Kent is very different from super selectives in London and the super selectives in London operate in a very different market to the super selectives in Essex. The differences in these schools have very different impacts on local school populations, intake, prep required etc.

I went to grammar in Essex but the stakes were much lower as there were excellent secondary schools and the reality is if Id have been fine at either type of school.

Where I happen to live in London is very different. There are some excellent state schools with teeny catchments, some schools that get good results but are extremely strict to manage poor behaviour (think along the lines of the Mossbourne Academies being investigated about allegations of psychological harm to children) some people like that I really don’t. And then there are some local schools that get appalling outcomes, have poor behaviour and have serious issues around eg knife crime in recent memory.

Yes. The absolute screaming priority is more money, more spaces, more universal and timely access to special schools on the basis of need. And better vocational pathways that can mix and match with functional skills and academic options. Both would dramatically improve mainstream schooling for the vast majority.

By comparison, discussion of the precise nature of the 11+ grammar schools is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.