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 The fury of parents is invoked who believe, academic opportunities have been withdrawn to their children at the age of just 10.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.

@redhilary
I’m not sure your question about ‘nuance’ really makes sense given your backstory.
It sounds like your mother was anti 11+ and a lefty. Your dad was pro 11+ and a tory.

Do you not think the same political aspect influences many mners in their opinions about 11+ and grammar schools? So not purely on whether their kids passed or failed then?

I didn’t sit the 11+ and neither did my kids as not in a gs area. My opinion is based on my politics. Is that nuanced enough?

Horrible system which shouldn’t be allowed anywhere and it is never open to everyone.

People always say that anyone who has been tutored will struggle in a grammar school but in my area most people seem to tutor. It's not just the rich parents as there are 11+ clubs that have 5 or 6 kids round a tutors kitchen table or 20+ kids in a community centre with a couple of tutors etc which isn't very expensive.

Also my daughter has been a top table kid so far and if she still is by year 5 I will absolutely get her tutored even though she seems like an obvious grammar candidate because I have THE FEAR! By that I mean I worry that kids who are a bit lower in the academic pecking order will be tutored in every type of VR and NVR question, have extra maths and English lessons, be taught exam technique and do lots of timed practice papers and would therefore get in instead of my daughter!

I didn't grow up in a grammar area though so I do worry about how divisive it will be and it would be much less stressful for everyone if we just had comprehensives. However then it would be selection by house price, is that much fairer?

I have never seen any education site describing children as losers. Link or reference please !

The 11+ gave me a way out of a home life with an abusive father who disapproved of the education of women. It enabled all sisters independence and professional lives that would not otherwise have been possible.
Rather than attacking grammar schools, govt should focus on improving standards of education in other schools.
A race to the bottom benefits no-one.

If Mumsnet posters are not Grammar Schools parents, they are likely to be investing in Private Schooling!

That's really not true, I don't think. I wouldn't dispute that there are more MN grammar and private school parents than the proportion in the UK population in general, but to suggest it's most MNers is ridiculous imo. MNers are from all walks of life and most threads about school matters are about people's state school kids.

I went to an All girls grammar and hell will freeze over before I send my DD there.

Initially my daughter was going to do the 11+ as she wanted to and I honestly think she had an excellent chance of passing it. But. She put herself under an immense amount of pressure so I decided she couldn’t. We moved to a part of the country that doesn’t have grammar schools at all in time for her to start secondary so there was no point in the end.

The idea of grammar schools make me uneasy anyway, as does the pressure that so many children seem to find themselves under to pass the 11+ and get into one. Where I used to live most of the children I knew who would be taking the 11+ were having tutors to pass. That seems crazy to me. Apparently it starts young as well.

Opposed. Didn’t take it - it hasn’t been a thing here for more than 50 years.
I earn 92k basic not that it should matter,
Glad DD didn’t take it.

Oh and I went to average comprehensive and so it DD.

Interesting one - I am the child of grammar school parents and was top of the top set at school as was my brother so even though we didn't live in a grammar school area I suspect we would have passed had we taken it. I had a friend who did as she lived in Kent growing up and there was no huge disparity in our education with me having gone to a good rural comp - in fact it turns out she went to the same Russel Group uni as my brother.

I look at my dds who have just started yr 7. I suspect one would have passed as she is bright and thrives on challenge and being stretched. She is massively competitive too though so if she would have failed that would have stayed with her - for that reason I'm pleased I didn't have to make that decision.

The other is good at school but I guess probably not strong enough to have passed or if she did, not have thrived. However she's in top sets and keeping up fine so it would feel odd to limit her progress at this age (limit isn't the right word I know but I can't think of a better one). Also if her sister passed and she failed it would have been hell for her confidence.

I am certainly not anti grammars but I am pleased I didn't have to navigate the above with my own kids.

My daughter passed her 11+ but after much thought and weighing up her personality we didn’t bother even applying for grammar. She went to the local state school and she did fine. We didn’t even put our youngest in for her 11+ even though her personality could have probably coped better with the environment.

Most parents putting their children around here forward for 11+ the back up option was private school so it hard to say.

I do feel that the 11+ option isn’t as open for children who are bright but living in a deprived area/situation. My dad & fil both lived in deprived areas and passed the 11+ I don’t think it’s as easy now for those children to even have the option to sit the exam - that’s not fair. I do think around here it’s a way of parents saving private school fees and having the status of having your child attend the School :(

Surely people are not opposed to the concept of selective education but rather the age at which it is done?

Because people don’t seem to be that worried about selection at 6th form or university. It’s fine and rational - as a lot can change between 11 and gcse.

I don’t live in an 11 plus area at all so I have no personal experience to influence. I have studied the issues around things like this slightly as part of my degree but only enough to help me form an opinion not to make me in any way an expert!

In a time when we have so many young people suffering with mental health issues as a result of the pressure they are being put under a system which basically decides if someone is going to be a failure at 11 is wrong in my view.

It’s a system that is too easy to hot house children to pass which makes the gap between those who can afford the tutors and those who can’t much wider. If we wanted a system based solely on academic ability then it needs to be one whereby children can’t be trained to pass the exams.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest for those children who are “borderline” that ending up at a school whereby they move from being above average in ability to one where they are suddenly at the bottom of the pile has a massive negative impact on their mental health.

We need a school system that works for all including protecting the mental health of all. The current one doesn’t, but the current 11 plus system does even less

I didn't live in an 11+ area as a child and my DC don't either.

I'm against it because everyone I know gets their child tutored, making it all about whether your parents can pay for a tutor rather than how bright you are. I'd be more open to it if the kids were 'tested blind' - more like how it used to be in the days of you and your siblings, OP.

@QuiltedHippo

Most people never even have to think about the 11+ as its not relevant, they're still able to have an opinion on the matter

Yes I’d agree with this, so i agree with the OP tht its a little more nuanced

OP it's ridiculous to say that most MN posters are either grammar school or private school parents!

Given how few schools are grammar, I think it's more nuanced than whether someone passed or failed 11+ exams.
I didn't do 11+ and don't live in a grammar area but think the grammar system is wrong. I don't view it as positive for social mobility as it appears to me to involve a lot of parents tutoring their children to death and contributes to unhealthy competition between children/parents.

Mint Julia. Here is an article referencing 'Winners and Losers'

beibindex.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/winners-and-losers-from-selective-school-system/

I think streaming/assessing by ability is important to get good education for children.

what I disliked about 11+ in some areas is that each school had their own test. nothing was standardised and for my dc to get into one of the more popular schools they would have needed to take a number of tests.

There is a place for some level of streaming without a doubt but that should be a fluid system and one whereby each subject is treated individually. A child’s ability in maths shouldn’t have any impact upon the class they are in for English.

Yes I agree that streaming for some subjects within a mixed ability school is a good solution.

Grammar schools are great for the children that attend them.
The problem arises when the other schools are not good.

Our elder DD has some SEN. We deliberately chose to move close to a good comprehensive in a non grammar area with a wide range of options both vocational and academic.
Our younger DD would probably do very well in a Grammar school. But she'll do fine at a proper comprehensive school as well.

Tumtrum. You don't see that many posts asking whether their child should go to Comprehensive A with a 38% Grade 5 Pass rate or Comprehensive B with A 41% Grade 5 Pass rate. Also I never read a post asking about schools in particularly deprived areas, such as Wythenshawe in Manchester or parts of Haringey.

This suggests the site if not middle class, is highly populated by posters with on average at least Grade 6 Academic Qualifications. This number of academically educated people on one site, is highly un-represented of the adult population as a whole.

Therefore, posters on are highly invested in the types of schools, which ensure their offspring will attain, at least the same academic standards as themselves.

That's hugely simplistic. I have one hugely academic child who is very motivated to study hard and has always excelled in tests. I have another child, very intelligent who was doing just fine at school until covid. So we pulled her out.
Schools are a massively toxic environment. Teachers are having to push all kids through the same hoops. And the ones that can't are treated as the problem as though all they have to do is work harder. But that's utter shite. It is of course possible to always turn up, concentrateork hard and still fail. Not because they can't do the work but because that day was a bad one, something three them or distracted them.

Teachers used to assess the whole child the 11+ is more about how a child can regurgitate information NOT understand it. The process encourage s a lights on but nobody home mentality to work. The education system is pushing more and more children out, damaging the mental health of more children and why? So that they can get into life long debt at university - that is seen as a noble goal. It's ridiculous

So that’s the difference between streaming and setting.
My dd’s school do streaming. They take the sats results, average them for the child and then use that figure to divide the yr 7’s into classes accordingly and the the kids do every subject together for the year.

Then they use the end of yr 7 exams to set them, so they could move up or down for some individual subjects. That is setting.

The trouble is that if they were in class 5, in yr 7, they will have missed loads of content that their counterparts in class one and 2 will have covered, so they will struggle to move.
In addition to this they will have been with a group of kids who were either not very bright, or disengaged from learning, and the disruptive behaviour that goes with that stops them from being able to do their best.

I’m glad I knew that this was the system and supported my kids to do their best in the sats, as it meant they weren’t at a disadvantage, but the whole system puts far too much pressure on 10 and 11 yr olds.