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

In our area every child trying for grammar is tutored. Some keep quiet on it. Some use big centres like explore learning where they work on line with help. Most for 12-18 months at £50-100 a week. Some more. Plus house prices are higher near most popular grammars. So no way a level playing field. Not even close.

Just eliminate it, as was done decades ago across most of the country.

In my limited circle it hasn't meant anything at 18+

One friend's two adult children now work in fast food and a high street shop. Minimum wage type jobs ( I'm not knocking that here I've done that myself just explaining)
One had a baby at 19 and doesn't work ( hasn't ever I don't think)

I had it rammed down my throat a little by the first friend when our children were 11/12 that hers would do significantly better with much better prospects later on.
Neither of her children went past sixth form. Mine are both at university having attended a normal comp. Both my daughters sat the 11+ but didn't pass and it hasn't affected their outcome post 18.
I now don't see the point of it and if I had younger children wouldn't put them in for the test

I don't think there is a simple answer to what you've described in the system we have tbh.

I too prefer some of the international systems you mention. I have taught on the international baccalaureate course, in a UK state college, that was brilliant and much better than A levels in my humble opinion. Alas, the course was dropped not because students did not do extremely well but because of the way the government funded the course. It became too expensive and the college was making a loss...

Definitely agree with you that delaying the selection is something that needs to be done. Personally, if I was education secretary I would be getting educational experts in along with parents and young people, and redesigning the whole system. But I fear they're too many invested parties who want to keep the status quo sadly..

Italian universities are a very mixed bag.

There are some excellent private ones that have demanding entrance exams, and a huge number where as long as you pass the leaving cert at school you can just show up.

Things may have changed now - I hope so... but friends of mine were in classes with so many students enrolled that there was no space for them all in the lecture theatres, and a lot of courses were purely theoretical (not great if you're studying medicine). They also seemed to be there FOREVER.

There is a reason why independent schools traditionally started at 13.

I went to a grammar, and that was also 13 (and used Common Entrance rather than 11+)

The problem is that schools are now totally set up for a big shift at 11, so it would mean over hauling the education system.

Countries like Italy switch at 14 - with the most academic going to the Liceo, the science kids going to the Scientifico and the ones for whom a vocational route is more suitable going to the technical colleges that tend to specialise in whatever the big local industry is.

I agree as it happens @privatenonamegiven . And quite a few educationalists I know would be in favour of scrapping exams at 16 too.

But as you say, beyond the scope of this thread which already has enough on its plate 😀

16 is also too young!! I work with 16-19 year olds and believe me very few know what job or career they would like. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we make our teenagers narrow their educational opportunities at 14 first with GCSE options and then even more at 16.

The whole system is flawed in my view. But that’s another thread 😂

Of course it's ok to say that. The issue is that 10 is much too young to decide who is academic and who isn't. Several PPs have now made this point and as yet none of the grammar school supporters have convincingly made a case for it being the appropriate age to decide what sort of schooling a child is suited to for the next 5 years.

I'm not against academic selection per se, but i am strongly against it taking place at 10.

I have advised my daughters who are of child bearing age not to move to Kent (at least the bits that don't border an adjacent authority) - even though we live here (moved recently) as the school system is so dreadful. The selective system is county wide, and all but a handful of the selective schools take the top 25% of ability according to the Kent Test. So the non-selectives are full of children who have been deemed to be failures at the age of 11, and the selectives aren't brilliantly academic. What a terrrible state of affairs - it benefits no-one. I work in one of the not very selective selectives (needed a job!), having worked in a superselective in a London borough previously. I don't object to those as they are so selective and draw from such a wide area that they have minimal impact on the local school environment. And in my experience such schools really are for the ferociously academic with most kids getting 8s and 9s at GCSE, and are brimming with intellectual curiosity. Would be lovely to see that here!

I always find is fascinating that with some things like (just some examples) music, running or artistic talent there is a general acceptance that there is an element of genetic ability and teaching should be aimed at the level of the individual. However when it comes to academic ability apparently the best way is for everyone to be taught at the same pace.

I come from a long line of teachers. The best way (imo) for all people to attain is to be taught at the right pace. Sets do this. It's not helpful to the very bright to be held back, they get bored and depending on personality may be disruptive and hold other students back. It is not helpful for anyone to be in an environment where the pace is too fast. It is disheartening and can lead to life long problems with self esteem.

I support grammars, I also support channelling those who struggle with exams into careers rather than an endless run of resits. A relative of mine has a fantastic career in engineering after my DM (a teacher) saw that he was never going to pass his GCSEs and got him onto an apprenticeship. The focus should be on streaming and career training. Not everyone is academically bright, in the same way as not everyone can run fast, or draw like Picasso, or play the piano like Mozart. Why isn't it ok to say this out loud?

i don’t necessarily think selective is always the way to nurture talent though.

My youngest is very capable but has always suffered from extreme anxiety and perfectionism (suspect masking ADHD but that’s another story)

At 11 I’m certain she could have passed the 11+ but knowing she constantly compares herself to the performance of others I felt strongly that being a strong performer in a mixed ability school was a much better option for her than being a middling performer in a selective school where her confidence would have taken a nosedive. So I didn’t let her take the exam (even though she asked). She’s doing really really well in her comp and I’m certain this is one of the factors that had helped (even though she CONSTANTLY compares herself still!)

My dd has dyslexia and she if went to a school that streamed she would probably have been in the non academic stream, now she is looking at doing very academic subjects at A level.. it lacks flexibility in my opinion.

Setting is a bit better but teachers get lazy and have negative thoughts (and behave differently in some cases) on the lower sets which again can impact pupils unfairly. So it’s something I don’t like but I can see why some schools do it.

My dd’s school only sets for maths everything else is mixed ability and it’s been a positive experience - this was why we wanted this school for her and we were very lucky that she got a place... it a standard state school with high aspirations.

Of course all children are not the same, but the consensus among teachers and education professionals, is all children should be exposed to the same high quality teaching and that doesn’t always happen when schools set sadly.

Are you against setting as well? Or just streaming?

Streaming is a terrible idea. Have a look at self fulfilling prophecy.. teachers are human and sadly their opinions of their pupils does impact performance. And no good at all for SEN

One of my good friends teaches at a grammar school. All the kids have been tutored to get in… and the vast majority still have a tutor at the school to keep up. So really, the good GCSE results are thanks to the outside tutoring, not necessarily the school itself.

I can relate to the boredom. We are London bordering various grammar boroughs and it did my nut in. People became obsessed. It was hard to hold my nerve at times.

I explained to DS he wouldn’t be doing the 11*, despite all his friends doing it, and the local schools were perfectly good. I also told him grammar schools don’t take many poor children and that I didn’t agree with that and felt it would be better to be with a good mix. He accepted it. I didn’t feel he was in a position at 10 to make an informed decision. Sixth form is his choice, secondary was ours. We considered his views but made the call.

I have seen it. It happened to many kids in my child’s year group. They have gone onto the local comp and are happy. Of course you would rather convince yourself that kids’ lives are ruined by 11+ failure but most are just getting on with it.

Some may grow up and wonder “what if?” but that’s life 🤷‍♀️ Others will likely say they were glad to have attended a school within walking distance and not had to contend with intense academic pressure.

I agree with you. A friend’s daughter recently got into one of the most competitive grammars in London (hundreds and hundreds of applicants). She was heavily tutored, but also played her part and committed to the tutoring and studied hard. I think there was one evening session a week in person and a 3hr session online on a weekend afternoon. Plus homework etc set by the tutor throughout the week. It must have cost a lot. I suppose some kids sail in having never looked at a past paper or practised but from what I saw in London, kids were tutored a lot!

As my name suggests I am not a fan of grammars. There are so many negative aspects. I am not in a grammar school area, but we have a couple of grammars locally and the lengths parents go to get their child over the line and into the "best schools" is ridiculous.

None of this means there shouldn't be selection. There should be. But not at the age of 10!

Have you seen the 4+ assessment on the primary thread where parents have been tutoring their kids since birth? 😂. Some parents don't care, they just want to be part of the prestigious gang and will do anything it takes no matter what.