To bring up how unfair the 11+ is?

[Jaggerdagger]

I live in a notorious grammar school area in the south east (I'm sure you can guess which one!).

Reasons why I dislike the 11+:

1. Tutoring is an unfair advantage and can only be accessed for those that can afford it. How can the 11+ be accurately assessed if the majority are tutored and only a handful manage to pass the test without additional support?
2. If a child is tutored just to pass a test, it doesn't necessary mean that they will thrive in a grammar school. I'm a teacher and I've seen lots of pupils not coping well in the high pressured environment.
3. It's divisive and can make those children that don't get in feel that they are inferior. Feeling like a failure age 11 for something that could be totally avoidable if this system wasn't in place seems terribly sad to me.
4. Comprehensive schools in the area suffer in various ways because of grammar schools. For instance, more private schools are opened in the area due to parents wanting to pay for better facilities for their children that didn't get into grammar school.

I'm sure this has been discussed before on here but I think it's worth bringing it up once more for debate.

Aibu to think that this is an archaic and unfit system that should be either be abolished or drastically changed?

Because Blair went to Fettes - the Scottish equivalent of Eton.

@Howshouldibehave

We run an after school 11+ club for those who want to sit the tests. We are not a highly selective area though and I do think that makes a difference. Roughly the top 25% get grammar places, this year nearly half our children ( in a bog standard, Requires Improvement, primary ) passed.

*Thanks for this. As a teacher in a grammar school I find it massively offensive. Your children’s experience (or what they chose to tell you of it and what you have inferred from there) is anecdotal.

I often hear stuff like this repeated by parents whose children didn’t get in- “It’s an exam factory/ hot house/ doesn’t care about the kids, only results” etc. They use it to make themselves feel better because it’s absolute crap. Rather than insulting and diminishing our teaching, the best thing to do would be to choose the best school for your individual child rather than getting hung up on grammar or not, and then support them all the way.*

So, I'm not meant to base my opinion on my own, direct experience of having 2 children go through the grammar system? And, also not base my opinion on my DDs' direct grammar experience, and even disregard their experiences as merely 'anecdotal'?

Righty-oh

Thanks for this. As a teacher in a grammar school I find it massively offensive. Your children’s experience (or what they chose to tell you of it and what you have inferred from there) is anecdotal. I often hear stuff like this repeated by parents whose children didn’t get in- “It’s an exam factory/ hot house/ doesn’t care about the kids, only results” etc. They use it to make themselves feel better because it’s absolute crap. Rather than insulting and diminishing our teaching, the best thing to do would be to choose the best school for your individual child rather than getting hung up on grammar or not, and then support them all the way

So, I'm not meant to base my opinion on my own, direct experience of having 2 children go through the grammar system? And, also not base my opinion on my DDs' direct grammar experience, and even disregard their experiences as merely 'anecdotal'?

Righty-oh hmm

I just think your life chances pivoting on a single exam taken age 10 is a terrible system.

[quote Jaggerdagger]@bozzabollix Yep. I'm sorry to hear about your son's experience as SEN taking Kent Test. That's borderline discrimination, isn't it? [/quote]
Nothing borderline about it, it is discrimination, but then that's the grammar system, legal discrimination.

@StickerPlace how do you feel about boarding schools? There are state boarding schools, you pay for the boarding element but the teaching is funded by the state.

Just asking this, I don't know - but wouldn't Kent be the easiest county to get in to grammar school for? As there's so many grammar schools, surely a higher percentage of children get in? Whereas in counties where there are very few, the competition is huge. (Just musing, don't jump on me!)

Essex have grammars, some are easier to get into than others. Some have a catchment area, others don’t. My DSIS had all her kids tutored, heavily from year 4. Only the oldest got in, from the waiting list, struggled, hated it and left after GCSEs. Our local grammar has no catchment and kids from London and internationally can apply, so it is only the most academic that can achieve a place. My kid is autistic, has CAT4 scores in the 130’s but won’t be taking the test because it’s not the right environment for them. Children should not be judged on academics alone, I agree with all those above who say the current education system is not fit for purpose. The world has changed massively and setting kids up to fail because they can’t ‘achieve’ academically is holding this country back massively. We need to focus on skills and not make our children the victims of an old fashioned politically motivated system.

I think in grammar school areas there should be a significant amount more money spent per pupil for secondary moderns in addition to other premiums (eg fsm or eal). I hope this would make it fairer and be able to give a more tailored education with smaller class sizes and wider range of subjects. It makes sense that lower ability pupils should have more attention to prepare for gcse and perhaps do it over 3 years instead of 2 - whereas grammar school pupils may be able to go faster through the syllabus.

Though perhaps comprehensives with streaming and specialised, selective sixth forms may also make sense.

I live in a grammar school area (Bucks). It is unfair. The schools are full of middle class kids who either went to private primary (with the intention of getting them in to the grammar and/or tutored for years. Lots of the schools also have small catchment areas and the house prices are astronomical (Borlase in Marlow for example).

Part of the issue with the 11+ is calling those who don't pass failures when in fact they are being identified as not suitable for a Grammar school type of education.

The point of the 11+ is to determine who is suited to a faster paced more intensive academic based education and who is not. Excessive tutoring to pass is just going to end up with your child in the wrong school. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect way of determining the correct school for each individual child but I do believe that different children thrive in different environments and I don't agree that every school needs to be the same in order for the system to be fair.

I know a number of children who have struggled to get into a GS (not in a full grammar area so very competitive) and just made it off the waiting list. These are the ones who are struggling yet many kids who can cope will thrive. Some of the children working at a faster pace would be disadvantaged in other schools as they can get held back by peer pressure and the need for a teacher to cater for a wider range of students.

What's really unfair is that access to grammar schools is a postcode lottery. We didn't live in a grammar school area so my kids had to go to sink comps

Of all life's unfairness, I would deem this one one of the least controversial.

Much more indignant that those who can afford expensive barristers are much much more likely to get their way and defend their situation than those who can't.

Unfairness and inequality are baked into British society like no other in the Western world. The school system is just one part of that. Unfortunately a majority of people (from all walks of life) seem to like it that way so it won't change any time soon.

Tutoring isn't just for grammar.

At my DC's comprehensive, there is masses of tutoring for GCSE and A levels. That is also unfair, in the same way as tutoring for grammar entry is, but you don't mention this inequality.

All sixth forms, are selective, even comprehensives. You can't go to sixth form with poor GCSEs, sometimes the entry requirements for comprehensive sixth forms are the same as for grammar. Obviously there are colleges with different entry, but there still likely to be criteria.

It is a misconception that all the pupils at grammar would otherwise be at private school. Plenty of very academic but otherwise disadvantaged children go to grammars, just not necessarily those you might expect.

getboosted
‘All sixth forms, are selective, even comprehensives’

This isn’t true unless you mean selective in terms of the subjects the students can pick.
Where do you think the kids who get grades 1 -3 at GCSE go?
At my school all current pupils can stay on regardless of their grades.

That wasn't my experience. I was a poor kid from a single parent household, and went to the local grammar school in second hand uniform. I had no tutoring. It gave me a chance to see a different life. I went on to a good university and a good career. I don't think I'd have had that in the secondary modern or a comprehensive school. I'd been mercilessly bullied at primary school for being clever and different, but at grammar school I could find my tribe much more easily.

I agree completely that the 11plus isn't fair, but it does seem to be one of the only areas that people get upset with the financial unfairness of it. Surely this happens with everything? For example, you can't do most sports (other than at school) unless your parents can afford it. You can't go on holiday unless your parents can afford it. Etc etc. it's not fair. But there isn't a way around it. You can't ban parents from buying whatever help they can to improve their own child's chances in life.
If they did away with grammar schools, this would still exist - parents who could afford it would pay for tutors to get their kids in to the top sets at comp.

All sixth forms, are selective, even comprehensives. You can't go to sixth form with poor GCSEs

That is just untrue. Some 6th forms ask for certain grades, many don’t. Our local sixth form has plenty of kids in it who got 1/2s at their GCSEs!

What's really unfair is that access to grammar schools is a postcode lottery. We didn't live in a grammar school area so my kids had to go to sink comps

Generally you get the sink comps IN grammar school areas because they have creamed off the top cohort!

I agree completely that the 11plus isn't fair, but it does seem to be one of the only areas that people get upset with the financial unfairness of it. Surely this happens with everything?

Education is more fundamental to a person's future life chances than being able to do more sports or go on holiday. And perhaps people feel that education provided by the state should be equitable? Not that the better education is only available to those who already have the most money?

Redskythisnight
I don’t disagree but there is no way to make it equitable because the success or otherwise of a school is dependent mostly on its pupils.
Better performing schools attract better pupils and parents whether through selection or by catchment continue to frequent their school.
Even if you say everyone has to go to their nearest school it wouldn’t help that much as if there was an upwards trend at a school then people with means would move nearer to it and the trend would continue.

We are in wales where there are no grammar schools. The choice is state Comp or private. Admittedly we live in the most well off county and we have no cities in our county so all the schools are pretty much the same.
DS1 is very intelligent but we couldn’t afford the local private school even with scholarship. We could have looked into 11+ but he would have had an 1.5hour plus trip on public transport to the nearest one which we felt would have been detrimental to his life balance.
His state Comp has been great. He’s in year 10 and has just got into a couple of university run programs - one with Oxford so I don’t feel his lost out by going to Comp.

The problem with the state/grammar/private school areas are that is becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If all the gifted and ‘nice’ well behaved kids are creamed off then the states only have the less able or trouble lessons kids so the results are going to be worse than grammar. If all the kids went to the same school like where we are then the whole range is catered for and people who maybe hadn’t come into their own at 10. It are ready at 14 to crack down are still able to move up to the top sets etc

@Smileyaxolotl1

getboosted ‘All sixth forms, are selective, even comprehensives’ This isn’t true unless you mean selective in terms of the subjects the students can pick. Where do you think the kids who get grades 1 -3 at GCSE go? At my school all current pupils can stay on regardless of their grades.

I did say that sixth form colleges would be different!

But school sixth forms and some colleges will require certain grades to take A levels, therefore they are selective. Plus colleges will be offering other qualifications in addition to A levels, which may have lower admission criteria.

We are in Lancashire area with one grammar. Not super selective - pass in catchment gets you in (rumoured to be 75% so top table child will get in not just the super bright) The other local schools are good and high achieving. Parents interested/supportive tend to gravitate to area which benefits all schools. Parents tend to be sensible and only enter those with a good chance. Children do need prep either diy or tutor. Some local state primaries run 11+ prep clubs. Reading a wide variety of books especially classics was a big thing for vocabulary but I did that anyway as both myself and DC enjoy reading so I wouldn’t class that as 11+ prep. Main issue was maths they need to know all yr6 maths by time of exam which is only 3 weeks in yr 6. No matter how bright you are you need to be taught it - one minute a question is not time to work stuff out. Exam technique needs teaching too - they are only 10 things like don’t miss any out, pace so you finish, guess don’t leave it need spelling out.
Only 75% places fill from catchment rest get allocated on score order - I know children in none catchment are tutored much more extensively as they need to be scoring 90%+ and local comps are poor.
Grammar School has suited my dc as I thought it would. She benefits from peers working at similar level, debates are interesting and go at a pace she likes. Curriculum is traditional, they all have to do 3 sciences, a modern language etc, Classics and Latin as options.
It’s not an issue locally the kids mix at extra curricular activities. It’s not unusual to have children at 2 schools.

I grew up in NI and in my time (80s/90s) grammars did mostly succeed in what they set out to do. Give poor, bright children a top notch education. I know many who benefitted hugely from them.

But I also know many who benefitted from the excellent secondary modern education that was available in my town - and many of these children transferred to grammars for A levels having spent five years in an environment very suited to their needs.

So in the right circs, with the right alternative education in place, they can have fantastic benefits. But it's all about the overall picture. Good grammars with poor alternatives could cause very different outcomes.