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

I find the idea that the grammar system results in children being “written off” at ten pure hyperbole. Who is writing these children off exactly?

I don’t see families writing off their own children when they don’t get into grammar? I don’t see comprehensive schools being annoyed that they receive the high achieving kids who didn’t quite make the grade?

“Written off” is just meaningless hand-wringing.

I've got a question: I live in a non-grammar area in London. There are grammar schools that kids from my area can and do apply to, though.
Because those schools take kids from a very wide geographical area, is the test taken / necessary scores to access them higher than, for instance, in Kent where the vast majority of kids will take the Kent Test? I suppose I mean if that area going to a grammar is the norm, then are entrance exam expectations lower? @dyedinthewoolcheeseeater

Yes, they tend to be what is called 'super-selective'.

Grammar schools in places like Kent tend to take the top 20% of local children and there's basically a pass mark. It's not particularly hard to get a place.

The super-selectives take the top say 120 candidates that sit the test regardless of distance. There are other schools that have a percentage that get in based on high score from out of catchment and a percentage within catchment who may qualify with lower scores.

Getting these places is pretty brutal. Take somewhere like Henrietta Barnet for example where thousands of girls sit for the exams.

I feel it’s worth pointing out that, for those of us who are troubled by grammar/private education, 1) we may have partners who don’t share our views and have to work around this, and 2) what’s best for our children under current circumstances may trump our principles. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be it. I’m done with wringing my hands over it.

School admissions have never been 'fair'.

If you live outside the catchment area of an outstanding state school and do not have the finances to move, no matter how much you believe the school suits your child. They will not be going.

If you do not meet the criteria for entry to a faith school. Your child will never gain entry and will not be going, even if you live next door. The ones near me require you to have been christened/baptised within 3 months of birth. There is no way to circumvent this criteria.

If you can not afford the fees for a private school. You child will not be going.

Schools that use selection tests either academic, music, sport etc require parents that are aware of the test, apply for the test and prep for the test. If you have parents who either are not aware or do not care about education that child will not be attending the school.

People talk about removing grammar/private schools and that will magically improve state schools. It may improve a small number of schools but there are far more issues that need to be dealt with to ensure a better education for all children. Fix these issues first and then you can have the debate about removing grammar schools because as it stands why would anyone who has a child going through the present system vote to remove schools that produce good results.

What people have an issue with is kids being "written off" at the age of ten, when we know that academic development and growth is different for each child. Alongside the issue raised in the OP about the tests not being accessible to some demographics because of how they are designed.
All state schools should be able to cater for and support the needs of all children. We know that's not the case, but the existence of grammar schools is not the way to fix this.

I've got a question: I live in a non-grammar area in London. There are grammar schools that kids from my area can and do apply to, though.
Because those schools take kids from a very wide geographical area, is the test taken / necessary scores to access them higher than, for instance, in Kent where the vast majority of kids will take the Kent Test? I suppose I mean if that area going to a grammar is the norm, then are entrance exam expectations lower?

Absolutely. Streaming within schools would be much more effective than silo-ing you at the age of 11 using a test that doesn't really test what it's supposedly designed to test, i.e. basic intelligence.

My daughter started grammar school three years ago, my son started 20 years ago.

Where in this thread do you infer that those of us who don't like grammar schools think that "academic ability should be kept quiet"? Where? Who said what that makes you think that??

I‘m not talking about individuals in this thread, @ParentOfOne I’m talking about British culture, in which no one must have ideas above their station, and bright kids must keep their light under a proverbial bushel, because no one likes a show off.

May I ask, if you object to the grammar system so strongly, why aren’t you voting with your feet and not entering your child for the 11+? Hypocritical, no?

Yes it’s elitist. Yes it’s brutal. Yes they are full of middle class / ex prep school / BAME kids from cultures that prioritise educational achievement.

Having said that I went through the process with DC1 and I’ll do it again with DC2. They are both autistic and grammar SEN departments are dominated by academic ND kids, so from my point of view, I’m prioritising the type of school best suited to their needs. It’s not actually about the academic results for me.

What strikes me is much of the negativity that swirls around grammar schools is the uniquely British notion that being academically able should be kept quiet, shushed and unrewarded. Sporting or artistic success is fair game, because that requires hard work, but the brightest kids are bright by an accident of birth and it’s therefore unbecoming to even acknowledge it, in the most part. White British families - in the main - don’t prioritise education.

I disagree that abolishing grammar schools and crippling private schools with VAT will improve our education system. It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom.

Edit:

Trying to pretend everyone is the same won't make them so. The one size fits all approach has completely failed and it should have been obvious it was never going to be beneficial for the majority of children.

@ThisPageIsBlank puts it perfectly

They are allowed to teach it. Lots of the Kent Primaries do prep sessions.

DD's state primary in London ran free after-school sessions for children sitting 11+ for state grammars or private schools to prep them all on NVR and VR.

I was interested that the local branches of Explore Learning were also packed with kids studying for the 11+ in English and Maths (as well as those doing general support) - my DD was pretty much the only white child there.

I agree with this entirely. By the time kids get to uni and are competing for both uni places and then jobs after uni - they're competing with a global application pool. And globally the selective education system starts young - it's the only way to separate out students who need more of an academic challenge and nurture rather than stagnate, in the name of fairness.

It isn't fair that children who aren't academically bright will still get into selective education because of expensive and intensive tutoring - but that's just life. Some could also argue that families who focus all their time, money and attention into academics from nursery age (like a lot of Asian families) have an unfair advantage over families with academic talent but no experience or inclination to cultivate it. I read a stat that Indian and Chinese are now the highest earning groups in the UK but 50 years ago that wasn't the case so a focus on education has definitely helped immigrants who didn't arrive in the UK and immediately go to private school or even grammar. The same way where I live in the UK, the wealthiest families are all tradespeople who've done really well and won't go into the grammar/uni system but carry on in trades. I'd never be able to break into trade like they can or be any good at it but don't begrudge them using their network, connection and families to carry it forward. Or kids who break into competitive sport early on and are selected into jr leagues - no one expects fairness in sports.

Everyone has some advantage in some area or the other and kids should learn early on life isn't fair BUT school and exam results are not the be all end all.

For late developers, they can still go to uni at any age or bypass it completely and get a job working their way up (where natural talent is more noticeable away from your academic credentials). There's more good uni places and grad jobs than grammar school places so clearly going to a basic state comp isn't hindering anyone. Grammar schools are only seen as a problem by people who don't think long term that life doesn't end once you're done with school - it's just beginning as there's plenty of opportunities to catch up. And Grammar schools may have a large number of privileged kids but they are also a lifeline for poorer families with brilliant kids who'd get bored and restless in a class where others are not at the same level - and can't afford private.

I’m instinctively in agreement with ParentOfOne but I’m not fully confident in this position. I sometimes feel with education that the most important question is: What do Finland do?

Kent has been selective since year dot. My impression from growing up there is that social mobility is pretty bad - is this accurate?

At some point we need to nurture the cleverest. That is the elite. Or do we treat them all the same and therefor we don't use our cleverest in the future.
That is not to say that we neglect the others, at later ages we seek the best for university from the entire population not just from the earlier winners.

@elizo well kids do talk to each other don't they! We weren't going to enter our DS, mainly because we didn't think he would fit a grammar tbh rather than for ideological reasons but his friends were all being tutored and he decided he wanted to try. Anyway he didn't pass!

The whole system is so clearly outdated and old fashioned, they should've been abolished completely rather than this half arsed "oh well you can keep them if you want to".

We are in Kent and it's all parents talk about once your kids get to a certain age it's so bloody boring.

I agree. A child cannot go in blind It is not possible. We moved from a non grammar area to a grammar area - my son missed the September 11+ tests and had to do the exam in January. We spent the WHOLE of December working on verbal and non verbal reasoning papers (including Christmas day) and he managed to get a high enough score early January to get into the local grammar school. I had no idea that there was even a test to get into grammar - assumed it was an interview (how naive I was!) No way can a child score highly enough without some sort of training. It is not intuitive to get through the answers in time without practice.

Having seen the very divided situation where we live children follow what their parents say. I don’t recall any of DS’s 10/11yo peers taking a different view

Argh! Replied to the wrong post! Sorry! Will try and delete.

Not the same.

If you have never driven a car of course you can’t pass.

However, all children will have been taught how to read, write, comprehend etc. It’s the style of the test that has to be taught.

A better example would be if you’d learn to drive a car but the theory test was in Chinese.

EDIT: sorry this should have referenced the post that said you wouldn’t take a driving test without having driving lessons as a relative example to tutoring for the 11+

When was this though? The 20% private hike is making our pool even more competitive this year. Tutors are saying dd will need 90% on all tests to be secure with getting in.

Totally agree with this. I deal with psychometrics for work and despite what the test publishers say we know that practice gives higher scores and we also know that most tests create adverse impact. In fact a lot of the questions dd is prepping with are so culturally biased.

I think there should be more grammar school. This gives more children the opportunity. Or more comprehensives should have a grammar stream. The one near us does....but I would still avoid sending my dc there, as there are still a lot of disruptive dc there.

Perhaps more primaries should give the opportunity to dc to prep. For example, have the prep books available for those who want it but cannot afford it. Offer up a list of books to use for study if they want to do the grammar option.