In suggesting whether you are pro or anti the 11+ exam is down to whether you or your offspring failed or is it more nuanced than that.

[redhilary]

The 11+ results have just been released across all the LEA that still have Grammar School provision. Every year around this time, I notice this site and others promote those that past as winners and those who failed as losers. Inevitably this provokes hatred towards the system, by those whose offspring had failed one test at the age of ten. The fury of parents is invoked who believe, academic opportunities have been withdrawn to their children at the age of just 10.

On the other side for some parents, the passing of the 11+ is giving their children great academic opportunities. Therefore, they are entirely grateful for their children to be educated in one of the remaining 163 Grammar Schools in England. Many of these parents actively sought out the 11+ Exam by moving areas. In so doing they maybe risked that their child might fail, (even if the child concerned had extensive tutoring) Are these parents views tainted by their child's failure.

On a personal note I come from a 'blended' family on the pluses and negatives of the 11+ Exam. I passed the 11+ so did my younger sister , my brother failed . Brother ended up at the local Secondary Modern, where my mother taught who was at the time politically hard left Thus, mother was an ardent protester against the 11+. My Father is/was a 'dyed' in the wool Tory existed at the other end of the political spectrum ( the discord between the two about the merits of the 11+ and the Miners Strike was interesting to say the least)

In terms of achievement it is my brother who is the one who has excelled most. This, with a P.H.D in Chemical Engineering and a place on the board of a large American Company. My sister is a H.O.D of English at a Kent Girls Grammar School.

Personally, i have just been employed or trapped in mid -management since my thirties.

Both DCs did the 11+ and passed. The smaller school and more academic focus of our local grammar suits them better than the huge local comp. But I am not keen on the 11+ system. I went against my principles because with the local school options available this was the best choice for my DCs. So I do think it’s more nuanced.

Deciding a child's academic path at the age of 10 is absurd. As I've posted elsewhere on MN today, academic achievement is not linear – different children mature at different ages, and some find their interests and focus much later than others do. The GS system doesn't prevent this happening, but it does mitigate against it and for that reason alone, I don't like it.

I'd quite like my children to go to grammar schools if the opportunity arises. I'd like them to have better SPaG and QWC than those shown in the OP though, sorry.

The stats quoted upthread are slightly misleading, the total number of schools is correct but
’How many schools are there in the UK? There are currently 32,028 schools in the UK. Of these, 3,069 are nurseries or early-learning centres, 20,807 are primary schools, 22 are middle schools and 4,190 are secondary schools.’

This is from Key UK Education Statistics.

Of course academic achievement isn’t linear. That doesn’t mean nobody should ever get an opportunity.

There are plenty of people who do brilliantly at A level, go to a top uni and then get overtaken in academic ability by someone who doesn’t really thrive until they are twenty at a lower entry university.

That isn’t a reason to close down Oxford.

Deepa. When my mother was teaching at her Secondary Modern, in the 80's and 90's the school was exceptional poor in quality. The school always achieved less than 15% achieving the 5 A* -C or whatever existed before that benchmark.

However, the same school today is not recognizable and the proportion of students achieving Grade 5 in Math's/English is about 40%. Therefore, though this school and others like it are technically Secondary Moderns . I prefer to call them High schools (which means different things in different counties) but which in Kent means Non Selective schools.

However, the Modern school my mother taught in for 12 years has come on leaps and bounds in the last 20 years This is not the school my mother taught in any way.

The old standards of that school meant, In the end my mother could not cope with the 'appalling' standards the school dealt in. Quite frankly in the end despite her political beliefs mother left for a grammar school because, she wanted to teach and not be Social Worker !

In my area, there are 2 grammar schools and are super selective. So many kids get tutored at primary and enter the 11+ exams. Of course, most don’t get in, including my own.
However, it has a ripple effect throughout the area where there are lots of bright hard working kids in the state schools and there’s a ‘it’s cool to be clever’ culture at my dcs school.
To be honest, I’m glad my dcs didn’t go to the grammar in my area. I’ve heard from friends with dcs in the school that it’s very academic but with hardly any focus on the creative subjects and no extracurricular activities. It wouldn’t have been the right school for my dcs but for others, it probably is.

The problem as I see it isn't Grammar schools per se, it is the fact that the Secondary Modern schools were underfunded back in the day. Crying shame.

As PP said, nowadays there is too much emphasis on academics and getting a degree and not enough on getting a trade.

As a result degrees are ten a penny and we're getting increasingly short of plumbers.

Grammar schools got my Grandad out of the slums and got my DM into teaching. That was when there were Grammar schools everywhere and the 11 plus was low key.

Now there is a lot of pressure. When DS did his entrance exam a boy was sick in the classroom and had to be taken out. Didn't help the others in that classroom either.

So back to the original question. I'm sort of pro 11+ and Grammars - and my DC and I went, so case in point. But I wish there were more, that the exams were less pressured and that we also learned to value trades and non graduate jobs.

That doesn’t mean nobody should ever get an opportunity.

Sure, but why should some children be given more of an opportunity than others?

If everyone went to their local comprehensive, then everyone is getting an equal opportunity, rather than asset-stripping the top whatever percentage (it varies) and giving them an unequal opportunity.

‘Sure, but why should some children be given more of an opportunity than others?’

Because at that particular point in their lives, they are going to benefit from it much more than the others.

Just as some people will benefit more from being chosen for art school, drama school, History at Oxford and so on.

But if everyone goes, the environment which creates the opportunity collapses.

Most of us didn't take an 11+ exam, nor do our offspring. I think of grammar schools as something that existed in the 1950s-70s, though I realise a handful of counties cling onto them.

Doesn't stop me from having an opinion about them.

Because at that particular point in their lives, they are going to benefit from it much more than the others.
At that particular point those who live in the 'right' place will benefit.

‘At that particular point those who live in the 'right' place will benefit.’

Well indeed. We have a massively inconsistent and varied education system with a patchwork of provision across private, religious and secular schools.

Many children get opportunities that are not based on ability.

I have always been very against the 11plus before having children. My husband and I were “gifted and talented” so if we had been entered probably would have passed. No idea if my kids would pass as too little to tell. But even if they both would pass I’m not likely to enter them. I think it puts huge pressure on children and leads to mental health problems. I’m against them on principle.

Plenty of people who could have passed choose not to sit the 11+ so it’s certainly more nuanced than you suggest.

I’m quite sure my DC would have been given places if they’d applied (full mark sats and targets of 8/9 for GCSEs with no tutoring) but it’s not the education I wanted for them. Their friends who did go to grammars have parents who seem to have very different value systems to mine. Interestingly, the most educated families sent their children to the local non-selective high school.

I went to a grammar, and would’ve wanted my DC to go to a grammar too, but we live in a non-grammar area now. But the comprehensives in our old are are dire. This disparity is not lost on me….

I do see a big difference between my gs cohort and friends who went to a comp, not just in terms of career or financial “success” but in terms of mindset and aspirations.

With single sex gs I understand there are better opportunities for girls to excel in STEM subjects. For me this supports some broader equality goals which I feel is a better contribution to society as a whole compared to the old line that gets trotted out about people from single sex schools not being able to talk to the opposite sex….

So overall I do understand that the grammar system can support social mobility in some situations; but by and large it may have the opposite impact and widen the gap between privileged and not.

If I saw better teaching, more ability-differentiated teaching, greater focus on a growth mindset and critical thinking in comprehensives then I would feel less “bothered” about grammars. However, I think that needs to be underpinned by better social support to avoid teachers doing social worker work (as mentioned upthread)… which we all know is not the case.

So I get that I’m a hypocrite in that I want the very best for my kids, and am willing to put them into the very system that contradicts the social mobility I profess to support. And fully aware that it’s easy for me to “support” social mobility without actually being someone who needs to benefit from it.

That battle between what is ethically right for society vs what I’m willing to do for my own offspring is very real. I just don’t think most people will admit to it.

@Missmissmiiiiiiiiisss

I have always been very against the 11plus before having children. My husband and I were “gifted and talented” so if we had been entered probably would have passed. No idea if my kids would pass as too little to tell. But even if they both would pass I’m not likely to enter them. I think it puts huge pressure on children and leads to mental health problems. I’m against them on principle.

I suspect they will thank you in later life. I went to a GS. I was the 'povvo' amongst the tutored daughters of solicitors and doctors. I spoke in the regional accent (still do) and was told by peers that it was 'vulgar'. I still feel like that vulgar povvo today. Academically, I did OK, 9 GCSEs at A-C. Exam results aren't everything though, not by a long shot but self confidence and good mental health really are priceless.

I live in Sydney and although we don’t have “grammar” schools, we do have a small number of highly academically selective high schools.
What is quite clear from these is that they most benefit the children who are highly tutored. Many families begin tutoring their children in Kindy to ensure that they will get a place.
The demographic make up now is around 90% Chinese and other Asian backgrounds - who have a tradition of highly tutoring their children.
Whilst I don’t have anything against these schools (no skin in the game anyway), they clearly aren’t a place for clever children from poorer families as poorer families simply wouldn’t be able to afford the level of tutoring necessary to attend.
I’m sure some children are just naturally clever and get in, but the vast majority are simply taught to pass the exams, which I can’t believe was the point of the schools in the first place.
Personally I love the idea of school being a way of lifting bright, hard working children into great jobs and opportunities, but I am a huge hypocrite here as although that’s my desire (that these opportunities are available for all children), I send my children to private school as their local high school is dire.

Agree with whiteroseredrose.
Different kids suit different schools. Funding the secondary moderns better than the grammars (as they may need more support for kids with learning difficulties) - giving a mix of academic and practical subjects would be positive. Given that state schools have large classes compared to private schools, grouping kids into ability groups makes sense I think to target teaching at a more appropriate level. Perhaps allowing secondary moderns to give an additional year of teaching to kids who need it (eg for gcses) might help?

I would rather see selection available to everyone via the 11 plus, rather than selection by money for those who can afford to go private. At least some of the poorest but brightest get the chance of an academic leg-up with a Grammar place (way more than the small number of private school bursaries). It can't be beyond us to come up with a tutor-proof, money-proof system. Better some chance of levelling up this country than no chance, with the drawbridge pulled up behind the well-off. Or are we content to let the Old Boy's Club from a very limited set rule the roost?

@lazylinguist

I went to grammar school. We don't live in a grammar school area now so my dc didn't take the 11+. I am a teacher, and even though I did very well out of my grammar school education, I am against the 11+. So yes, I do think it is more nuanced.

If I happened to live in a gs area, would I send my dc to grammar school if they were able to pass the 11+? Yes. Because you can only use the system you have and it would be foolish to choose to send your child to a school that wasn't suitable for their ability level. But I do not think it is good to segregate children into different institutions based on a snapshot of a certain type of ability when they are 10/11.

Yes. This. Almost word for word. Not the first time that @lazylinguist has read my mind

grouping kids into ability groups makes sense I think to target teaching at a more appropriate level

Yes, this. If I was applying to a course to learn beginner's Spanish/art/technology, I wouldn't find it useful to be in the same class as people wanting to do advanced stuff, and vice versa. Differentiation within a class is a good aim, and works to some extent, but in practice it's more likely to require compromise from all sides.

Ozgirl. I had a cousin that went to Sydney High School for Girls. Basically Australia's Selective High Schools are Grammar Schools by a different name.

Tell me if I am wrong OZ girl but Grammar Schools in Australia are actually 'Private or Public Schools' In British terms.

Hence, the reason why in Australia they call them simply what they are which are academically selective high schools. However, to confuse even more in England we have Schools called High schools that could mean they are a Grammar, Secondary Modern or Comprehensive in nature !

I have a cousin at least I thought I did....

My area didn’t do it so I have no horse in this race.

Would be ok if it was a fair competition, but all the cramming and usage of tutors by middle class families make it completely elitist and unfair.

Don’t like private schools for the same reason.

However if we were in an 11+ area I would also be hypocritical and enhance my child’s chances with tutors etc, just as I would send my child to private school if I had the money to

Doesn’t meant to say I like the system though..