A question (or three!) about 11+

Yes we are in London, so (theoretically) had a choice between secondary, faith school and super-selective grammar. Realistically the grammar and faith schools were not options, so secondary it was.

And although I see where they're coming from with their ethos of "levelling up", I agree with other posters that it puts some kids in a position of levelling off, or putting their own education on hold to become mini TAs (great phrase!).

"Do you have a link for this as I’d be interested to read about this.

Perhaps that’s the case in Grammar school areas and if that’s so then that is absolutely brilliant. I really applaud that.

Thats not the case where there is only one grammar school in an area"

@BLUEcups there's no one link. It's all on each individual schools admissions policy.

We don't live in a grammar area. Our grammar schools we applied for are all over the shop.

We have some in Birmingham, one in Wolverhampton, two up near Telford. We are 25 mins from the closest one (which is also thankfully the best and dd has smashed the score for and it's our first choice). On all their admissions policies they talk about PP scores and give examples. Only the some of the ones in Birmingham have catchment areas. The others don't.

For example, One the lowest score that got in last year was 209. The lowest score that they took for PP pupils was 185. That is the only grammar in that area, the next nearest grammars are 45 mins/1 hour in either direction.

Incorrect @BigSilly for London. Greater London has a number of superselective grammar schools (entry based on score only not catchment, primarily, or half half type thing) and so has no impact on the comprehensives. The only exception is London Borough of Bexley.
London can offer a vast variety of different types of schools, because there are excellent transport links and also they are primarily free until 16. Discounted after that if in full time education.

First off, grammar schools and comprehensive schools by definition cannot coexist in the same area . In an 11+ area you get grammars and secondary moderns (euphemistically called something else like non-selective school in selective area)

Throughout state primary school we listened to how good our children were at helping other children and how proud we must be. Mini TA's are the word, yes.
We were told that you could really tell that dad is a teacher (not primary school) and I have also been in teaching roles.
When we have asked what the school did to teach our children we have mostly been met with silence.

Hence 11+ and grammar school.

Do you have a link for this as I’d be interested to read about this.

Perhaps that’s the case in Grammar school areas and if that’s so then that is absolutely brilliant. I really applaud that.

Thats not the case where there is only one grammar school in an area.

“I wish my DD's secondary was like that. They seem to be actively opposed to streaming... at least, they don't say so outright, but that's the impression I get. They're keen on "mixed-ability groups" for learning. One of their main policy goals is: "Actively close gaps in attainment and achievement between pupils and all groups of pupils."”

@zaxxon - I specifically avoided our local school for my DDs that is like that because they were already used as mini TAs throughout primary schools to “help” boys with dyslexia or behaviour problems. Always sat right next to such a boy. Strangely, the same never happened to my DS’ who are actually higher attaining. 1 of them would have not helped and just ignored the person next to them and they other one would have become anxious next to a disruptive child. Yet the girls were seen as helpful fodder. No child should be primed by the education system to become a pleaser and helper, it annoys me!

I wish my DD's secondary was like that. They seem to be actively opposed to streaming... at least, they don't say so outright, but that's the impression I get. They're keen on "mixed-ability groups" for learning. One of their main policy goals is: "Actively close gaps in attainment and achievement between pupils and all groups of pupils."

I suspect it comes from the same place as many people's opposition to grammars - not wanting the lower-achieving pupils to feel sidelined and "written off" in a lower set.

It's not a policy I agree with, but DD didn't fancy the grammar and there weren't any better options!

@GildedRage i totally agree. One of my dc’s primary schools was chaotic - underprovision for SEN was at the root of that. And some batshit ideas about therapeutic behaviour modification. My dc absolutely hated it, but for a number of reasons we couldn’t change school.

DD’s secondary comprehensive has higher behaviour standards. It does feel quite strict but the rules are steadily increased to avoid a hard landing in Y7 for kids who have been used to regular classroom evacuations and constant disruption. I’m not saying it’s perfect but dd reports she can concentrate on most of her classes (as she is now working on GCSEs all the “academic” subjects are streamed).

In our case a big secondary school facilitated the slt to create calmer classrooms - different strategies to manage different abilities. Not perfect but functioning fine for a large number of kids, the school is heavily oversubscribed

Everyone deserves a calm learning environment currently not all schools offer this in a healthy way, so parents who can help their children take the 11+ do.

@arethereanyleftatall its not about the exam... its about this attitude that less smart children don't also deserve a quiet calm environment and focused learning.

In many ways our life had been easier if our children had settled well in primary school and been happy.
They didn't. They were bored 90% of the time and ahead in most subjects. Teachers didn't have time for them. Time was spent on kids within the normal IQ span. Bored children are trouble. They can do a lot of 'fun things' to pass time at school.
I went to a grammar school in my native country so did my husband so we weren't surprised but it would have been easier with avarage kids not bright kids (all 3 children had a WISC test so it wasn't just a mum's idea of smart children).

We opted for grammar because our local secondary school is way too big, very draconian (academy) and because of the sheer numbers of kids, has some behaviour issues in and out of the classroom. We felt our child would be better suited to a smaller, calmer environment and she also said she would prefer an all girls school. She was working at greater depth throughout juniors and she wanted to sit the 11+ as she wanted to go the grammar school. So she did, and that’s where she is now. She has friends at the other school and she is happy she isn’t going there due to all the rules, the sanctions and frequent bullying issues. She says her school feels calm and no one messes about. The school seems to allow the girls lot of independence and aren’t trying to squash their personalities out of them.

Obviously we know kids at other schools that are happy and I am sure there are kids at our school that aren’t happy. So far, it works for us.

My understanding is that if a child scores has taken SATS and scores highly, their targets in KS3 will be based on that, wherever they go.

I'm really glad grammar schools exist. Yes my girls are at one!

The speed that they as a cohort have been able to work through the gcse curriculum is fast and as a result they have been revising/doing past papers for much of year 11 in sone subjects.

So it's been the opposite of too much work for dd, because she doesn't need to do any homework/revision at home - as long as she works hard at school, it's covered.

In lockdown rather than normal open days to view secondary's which are obviously marketed to show case the best, instead we were invited to walk around in a normal school day. The difference between the grammar and the local very good comp was huge - at the grammar in every single classroom there was silence, at the comp in every single classroom there was at least one kid doing something disruptive.

It is great for those who get in. For those that don't, maybe that's on the parent? - don't put them in for it if you don't think they'll pass?

The reason people are desperate to pass the 11+ is because the comps don’t set standards high enough at the top end (even though there will be kids there who only just failed the 11+ / didn’t have the tutoring others were able to get)

When you look at comps, inevitably their overall results aren’t fabulous - the best are getting 57% with top gcse grades; compared to large numbers of selectives and indies getting 90%+.

In my non-11+ town we have three good comps. One is excellent and large enough to stream from year 7. Sets are reshuffled every term based on testing. My dc has peers who are “grammar school standard” because obviously, there is no local grammar school to do to. And there are a couple of classes who targeting all 8s and 9s at gcse, dc is y9 and only below an 8 in two subjects (PE and a language). My dc will sit 11 GCSEs at her comp.

I truly don’t understand why all comps cannot be like this, if grammar schools no longer existed.

As someone else has said it's not just about academics.

Those of us (and now our children) who did/do well in Selective schools didn't do so well in a comprehensive environment.

Our daughter moved to a selective senior school and the bullying for being a 'nerd' has disappeared.

Sure she's on track to get great GCSE results but that's second to her mental health and happiness in our opinion.

The 11+ is weighted for children on pupil premium.

The pass mark if a child is PP is far lower. So it is a more level playing field for children from poorer backgrounds if they chose to sit the exam.

I was prepared to home educate for the first year or so of secondary until we moved to a better area for her to be honest.

If dd hadn't got such a good score, I would still be in favour of 11+

I understand where you are coming from with tutoring.

But the 11+ questions, the way they are worded, the verbal and non verbal reasoning just isn't taught in a lot of schools.

It was in mine, but I lived in a grammar school area where everyone did the exam, so we did it in school. My dds school do nothing like it.

If my dd hadn't had practice books at home and a few months of tutoring (not years)to be familiar with it all, she would have found it stressful just going into the exam, totally unprepared for the completely different format and way of thinking.

It's not just usual English an and maths. God, I passed it as a child, and on opening up an 11+ practice book with dd 30 years later, my head was fucked looking at the pages at first! If you were to sit in front of a non verb reasoning paper workout knowing what it was, with no prep, you'd struggle.

It's so different.

“There are in fact huge numbers of motivated but not quite bright enough children failing to get into grammar schools and then really missing out as a result.”

Agree with that. However, on the other hand, for children with ASD who are academically able grammar can be a far better fit. We may not have as many academic school refusers if we still had grammars for all. It is quite difficult to tell really. All systems have their pros and cons. The reason we went down grammar with DC1 is absolutely because they needed it (ASD profile, highly academic). The school year was smaller (under 130), class sizes were 27 and there were lots of boys with similar interests.
I remember worrying at the time whether he would be up for the 11 plus prep - didn’t use a tutor. He actually loved the work and really came into his own. So that is the other side of the story.

It's very noticeable that all the posters supporting the 11+ have children who pass. I am damn sure they would be less keen if their child had fallen the wrong side of the line. I live in Kent. and see this mentality all the time.

Thing is, if you believe in selection at 11, you need to accept that your child might not be selected.

Edited to remove a random asterisk.

"This assumes there are two groups of children: bright and motivated or delinquent.
There are in fact huge numbers of motivated but not quite bright enough children failing to get into grammar schools and then really missing out as a result."

I always find it hard to put across on mumsnet just what an utter shithole I live in. I don't think most people using this forum live in such a deprived area that I've ended up in.

It's all XL bullies, dirty tracksuits, hanging out of windows screaming that next door is shagging their boyfriend, and the stench of weed in the air. That's not me being a snob - it's just how it is.

None of the schools here are good. The teachers try really hard, but it's ingrained that school and any authority is the enemy. Everything is a fight. My husband is one of the heads children's services for the local authority - it's just dire all round.

No brighter kids here are missing out on grammar school places as no one takes the 11 +, even though we are only half an hour away from two of the top performing single sex grammar schools in the country.

There is an awful reverse snobbery here, it's seen as laughable to want to do well. The parents act like children themselves, it's actually embarrassing to see them in the school playground at drop off/pick up, they are feral.

Of course there are some nicer familes and to be fair, they usually tutor their children outside school, some end up home educating but honestly, it's few and far between where I am.

I had a far different experience with my now adult child. Life was vastly different. We lined in a Leafy suburb with amazing secondary schools, we were lucky in the fact that we lived i right by a sought after secondary schools and fantastic primaries. But there, it was all middle class parents who expected their children to do well and had high expectations of school, were actively involved in the school,and knew how to behave appropriately themselves. It was a completely different world and culture to where I am now.

It’s the hot housing and years of private tutoring by more affluent parents that I think is unjust.

The concept of the 11+ is questionable anyway so I don’t entirely agree with writing off kids at 11 based on a test score but the original purpose was that it would help improve the life chances of those that were academically most able, regardless of their background and in theory it did promote social mobility.

These days they’re full of middle class kids with parents able to cheat the system. If a child needs to have 2 years of private tutoring in order to gain a place then I’d argue they shouldn’t be going because it’s over inflated scores based on practice.

It’s like IQ tests, you’re not supposed to actively practice them as and you’re not supposed to sit the same IQ test within a year or two as the familiarity will invalidate the score.

There will be people that reply to my post saying I’m wrong and their child did have tuition, but their child would have passed anyway and I believe that to be the case for some kids, so why use a turner in the first place?…..

Well we know the answer, it’s because you believe it will enhance their score! As everyone else uses a tutor then you want to give your child the best chance of securing a place…

It’s evident above that people DO think tutoring helps (of course they do or they wouldn’t pay it) so my observations stand that they are mainly full of children from affluent areas whose parents pay to have their child’s grades inflated.

The bigger picture is that it defeats the original purpose of the concept of social mobility. Kids from poorer backgrounds that could easily pass but can’t artificially inflate their scores don’t get in.

They aren’t based on natural ability, they’re generally average to slightly above averagely intelligent children with richer parents. I think there should be a rule whereby if you’re caught paying for private tuition then your child’s place should be revoked then it would be more fair. Of course people will say ‘Ahh but people pay for GCSE revision etc and life isn’t fair bla bla’ and that’s true but at least they aren’t written off at 11.

This assumes there are two groups of children: bright and motivated or delinquent.
There are in fact huge numbers of motivated but not quite bright enough children failing to get into grammar schools and then really missing out as a result.
I live in a comprehensive area which borders a grammar area. Every year, families from my town have a go at the 11+ to save their children from the comprensive experience, even though, when you compare outcomes of the top 25% of the comprehensive school (effectively the “grammar” cohort), they are at least as good if not better (assuming outcome means HE destination of choice including Oxbridge) than the local grammars.
In the grammar school town, the secondary modern school is pretty dire, and the stress in year 6 of finding an acceptable alternative when the child fails the 11+ is next level - not just for the parents, but also the children.
ObvIously if you live somewhere heavily populated like London or Kent there is far greater choice, but grammar schools outside that area are hugely limiting for the majority or middling children.

My DC came home from school really happy the other day, because due to illness a couple of usually very disruptive boys had been absent. ‘It was amazing, we could just get on with our work.’ As PP have said, classroom behaviour and peers who want to succeed can make a huge difference