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 The fury of parents is invoked who believe, academic opportunities have been withdrawn to their children at the age of just 10.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 wouldn't like to say if MN is more middle class or not as a whole, but there's probably a bit of self-selection on the education threads.
Just like people won't post on the relationship boards if they're quite happy in a loving relationship, most people who are choosing between two standard local schools are probably not going to ask on Mumsnet unless there's a particular requirement they need advice on.

If people are living in a middle class bubble of which tutor shall I get aged 5 to ensure they go to either grammar or the local private school. I don't want to give away any of our 11+ secrets. What will I do if DC doesn't get into grammar? We aren't wealthy but could probably cut back to cover private fees, then you're maybe more likely to post.

I'm not suggesting this isn't a broadly middle class website with academic aspirations - of course that is true. But grammar schools and private schools only make up about 10% of UK schools. I don't believe it is accurate to suggest that representatives of the 10% outnumber representatives of the 90%.

The crux of the matter is under-funding. If all comprehensives had the resources to efficiently meet the needs of students of all academic or practical ability across the whole spectrum then grammar school would become completely irrelevant.

I totally agree with @3scape
When i look at which kids in my dd’s class got 9 grade 9’s this year, I would say lights on but nobody’s home is an apt description.
No critical thinking going on.

@redhilary

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.

Where i live you go to the catchment school

It wouldn’t occur to me to come onto mumsnet and ask

School choice varies throughout the country. In many areas the choice is simply the Local School. Weve actually only applied for one school... but there's a 99%chance we will get in, and a minimal chance of getting elsewhere, as its fixed catchment areas. Plus its the only school within 3 miles, except the Catholic school... and we aren't even church goers let alone Catholic.

And what lola said

I can't really vote either way. DD1 passed with flying colours, DD2 didn't, but I know it has got harder every year and she may have scraped through in DD1's year. However, in that case the grammar school might have been too much pressure for her.

And they are both in good schools. It all seems of far less importance now.

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.

This is an illogical assumption. Firstly, you are only focussing on the threads asking for advice about which school to choose, whereas the vast majority of school-related threads by parents on here are not about school choice. They are about situations or queries about the (usually state) schools the poster's dc actually attend.

As has been pointed out, the stats will be skewed on the school choice threads by mc, potential private/grammar school parents being more likely to seek advice on here about school choice. Partly because they are typically very driven to seek out top schools and more likely to be in a position or location where they are likely to have a nice range of competitive choices to ask people about. Many parents sending their dc to a state comprehensive will (because of location or personal circumstances) have little or no choice of which one, especially if they don't live in a city.

No grammar schools near me so it was never an option. However, I think they discriminate against dc with SpLd so I think they are wrong on that basis.

When I lived in the UK, we were not in a grammar area. But that didn't stop the other parents at school. At least 10 kids a year did 11+ for neighbouring counties superselective grammars. Every year 2 or 3 might get in and face a 3 hour round trip on the mainline train. One kid from DD class basically lived in digs during the week, so I hope it will be worth it. Couldn't imagine putting kids through that when we had 2 decent enough schools in walking distance.

I passed the 11+ and it made absolutely no difference.
I still had to go & take a couple of days worth of different exams to get into my entrance by competitive examination only secondary school.

My sister wouldn't have passed either of them & went to a comprehensive school, but she ended up being far more successful in her work life than I have so what does it really matter which exams you passed way back in your childhood?
I've never seen a job application form that asked or cared what you did when you were at primary school.

There are way too many exams being foisted on children & nowhere near enough time actually letting them be kids.

I grew up in a non-grammar area and went to the local comp. I now live in an 11+ area and think it's awful. DD is 7 and her peers have already started tutoring for it. The pressure is insane.

It seems many of those who only have one poor catchment school, for their children to attend would love the choice of a "Grammar School" option . However, to counteract this opinion, many who live in a full on Selective area bemoan the lack of an option of a Comprehensive, if their DC fail the 11+.

Thus, it seems what's required to cross this cultural divide is a "Grammar" that does not select on ability at least at age 11. This, invention would need to educate a fully Comprehensive cohort yet provide the ethos of Grammar school and its results! This school is obviously not possible, unless you present the "Michaela School" in London. This, school though I understand causes debate about their methods and structures. These, structural practices may be discriminatory to those with "Special Educational Needs"

For what is worth I personally on balance, are pro selection. This, is also the position my mother now takes having crossed the political "Rubicon" of hard of left learning to being on the political right today. My mothers opinion on selection and the merits of it changed over time. This, being due to teaching in a Girls Grammar and finally in a mixed Boarding School. My mother came to appreciate teaching able children with a desire to learn and improve. This, being opposed to the continual "firefighting" approach required to undergo teaching in non selective schools.

In terms of the different standards my mother noticed a huge chasm. My mother told me the Math's the year 8 girls were doing at the Grammar, would only be covered in the final term of year 11 at the Modern school.

The fly in the "ointment" though is the success of my brother who failed his 11+ though he did join a Boys Grammar in the Sixth Form.

I guess therefore, that the 11+ is just where a child is located academically at a particular time. This, being in reference to a particular style of standardized testing system that does not favor for instance highly bright children with "Special Educational Needs" Thus, the testing system is not "infallible" in completely selecting the right pupils. However, if the 11+ has a success rate of say 70% of correctly identifying the right pupils at age 11 (note we have late developers who should be allowed entry at 13 or 14). I think that makes the 11+ and Selective Education justifiable in my mind.

It seems many of those who only have one poor catchment school, for their children to attend would love the choice of a "Grammar School" option

Many?

I certainly haven’t seen ‘many’ (I haven’t seen one but I’m may well have missed it)

Actually I can’t see where ‘many’ posters have talked about ‘poor’ catchment schools either

I haven’t reskimmed page 2 yet….are they all on page 2?

Maybe. I'm a bit 'meh' about the whole thing, but then I didn't realise the grammar system still existed until I got to university.

Never read a more incomprehensible OP in 15+ years on Mumsnet.

What is the AIBU ... anyone?

@mafted

I'm against because they shouldn't still exist when such a huge majority don't even get a chance to apply. My children went to/will go to a school in special measures because that's all there is unless we move, lie about our religion or pay for private.

I agree. And it's not because I failed the 11+, we didn't have it where I grew up and I wouldn't have gone away to school.

The grammar school system now is far from what it was, or set out to be.

It enabled my father, working class background, to consider university though he actually took a clerical role. There was no prep for it, you just did it.

Nowadays its massively gamified - the majority of parents tutor and it effectively means that everyone needs to prep to be in with a chance of gaining entry to a school off the back of it.

There has been research that shows grammar schools have a poor effect on social mobility (Durham University), and the majority of attendees are from "socially advantaged backgrounds". The same research showed they are no more or less effective than other schools. Grammar schools have a low % of children receiving free school meals.

They're a middle class balm, voting bait and educational red herring.

They should be scrapped and the focus put back on providing good school choices in an area.

My DD has just passed the 11+. I think it is an archaic and elitist system. She will go to grammar because it offers the best opportunity, but actually I think every child should have the chance to go to a school and have the high standards. No easy answer there, but I won't deprive her of the chance because I think it is a bad system.

@redhilary streaming/class sets would accomdate the difference in ability you allude to.

The 11 plus is a great way to distinguish who's parents can provide the home based support needed to prepare for the exam-from a bit of exam practice to paying for tutoring. Rare will be the child from a "socially advantaged background" who simply turns up to take it.

My dad is very bright and I can always remember he told me all the kids in his school took the 11+ and he passed but would never have gone because he wanted to go to the same school as his friends and brothers. Also it would have been too expensive for his family. He also said all the ‘nice but dim’ kids from rich families took the test again and again until they passed.

The nearest grammar school to me is 50 miles away on country roads so it wouldn’t even have been on my radar growing up. Anyway, my Dad is hard left and staunchly against any kind of selective school (whether Grammar school or religious) so we would not have been encouraged at all.

@redhilary

I absolutely disagree to that statement.
Maybe for some it is true but I personally disagree with the 11+ Because it is wrong just wrong.
So my kids didnt even do it and we moved country because we didnt want them to go through it (and brexit )

It is wrong because

• every kid is different and some mature much later
• the top kid can have a bad day on the day of the exam and to have it failed because of nerves is unfair
• selecting at this age is just wrong

AND

• finally it doesnt even put England at the top of the world education.

Those poor poor children. No matter how much parents justify it by saying “it is to find the right school” at the end of the day they are putting their kids under so much unnecessary pressure and stress.

Sorry OP - I normally think it's rude for posters to pick holes in how an OP phrases their posts, but you don't seem to be making a lot of sense tbh. And what on earth is with the sudden huge avalanche of completely unnecessary quotation marks?!

You seem to be working on the basis of a bunch of misunderstandings. Your brother isn't a fly in the ointment - firstly that's not really what that means. Secondly it's not that unusual for a kid from a secondary modern to do well for themselves later in life.

The fact that your mother preferred the behaviour and attitudes of the students in the grammar school is unsurprising, but it's not an argument in favour of grammar schools. Chucking the troublesome kids into one school with the other kids who didn't pass the 11+ but who are good, well-behaved kids who want to learn, while creaming off the brightest (or most thoroughly tutored) ones to send to the nice school - does that strike you as fair?

Besides, I'm pretty sure it's been shown statistically that a full grammar school / secondary modern system may improve results slightly for some of the kids who pass, but it does not improve outcomes taken overall, because it worsens outcomes for more kids than it improves.

Finally, if you believe in dividing by ability, what is wrong with simply having comprehensive schools but using rigorous setting? That way, kids are taught to their ability level, but are not written off and segregated into different schools. Plus, they can move up or down sets if their level improves or goes down, which is very common.