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?

All those saying "well I passed 30/50 years ago with no tutoring" etc are missing the point massively. The landscape has changed massively since then, it isn't the same 'vehicle of social mobility' that it used to be.

@Hb12

All those saying "well I passed 30/50 years ago with no tutoring" etc are missing the point massively. The landscape has changed massively since then, it isn't the same 'vehicle of social mobility' that it used to be.

And that’s a very bad thing. If the 11+ was a test for which it was impossible to be tutored, grammar schools would return to being vehicles for social mobility as they were originally intended.

@TyotyaKlava

Sorry for slightly off topic question but what does everyone think of sending an (Hugh functioning) autistic child to a grammar school? My 7 year old dd has not been diagnosed but we are on waiting list for an assessment. She struggles with friendships and high anxiety. She is very bright, on top of her class, she reads every spare moment she has. She has emotional issues she has huge meltdowns etc. Our comprehensive school is the only one in area and doesn’t have a great reputation. I’m worried about level of education and bullying due to her being slightly different. Because she is quite bright shall I give 11+ a go in a few years time? I’m worried about her anxiety though as she doesn’t like being under pressure

I can only speak for the school I work at which has an excellent Student Support, and offers amazing support to children who have statements as well as those borderline cases who need extra help. It’s early days for your DC, but when the time comes visit the school and ask the SEN lead to give you a tour with your child. Don’t be afraid of asking detailed questions about provision and encourage your DC to ask questions to gauge how they are answered as well as whether or the answers are directed at you or to him.

TyotyaKlava there is a pupil with autism in my DC’s grammar year. She has meltdowns and has a support assistant. The other children are understanding she’s not bullied. I’d speak to the school. The doesn’t like being under pressure you’d have to look at. Expectations are high - a 7 is pushed to an 8, an 8 to a 9 it’s definitely not a oh you got a 7 (A) rest on your laurels type atmosphere. It suits mine but I can see it could be stressful to some children.

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

That’s a good point.

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

That’s a good point.

I disagree. With the 11+, children are completing for a finite number of places, so if tutored child A gets a place, untutored child B loses the place. Tutoring for GCSEs isn’t a competition; it (hopefully) raises a child’s grades in particular subjects, whether to get a really good grade or simply scrape a pass. It doesn’t really effect anyone else in the same way.

It is unfair but the vast majority of parents will do whatever they can to get their children the best education they can
So it would be necessary to ban all private and grammar schools,can't see much political appetite for that
And what about tutoring generally how do you stop that
And moving to a better catchment
A lot of it comes down to £

But school sixth forms and some colleges will require certain grades to take A levels

Our local secondary school takes all pupils into their sixth form who want to stay, no matter what GCSEs they got. I’m sure they are not alone.

We did 11+ for our eldest, he went to a state school for KS1 and then a prep school. I did the tutoring (it isn't difficult to go through the work, our prep school only "prepped" for 13+), he's academic, but not brilliant, but he got in easily.

It's crap, it's meant to be one of the best state schools in the country, the teaching is really variable, even for GCSE, there is little ownership of anything and I really feel that we've failed DS. Everyone seems to tutor. We had plenty of money to send him to a decent private school.

Deciding on a child's educational future on the basis of a particular type of test, taken on a single day, at the age of 10, is a terrible system. If you were trying to devise the most unfair, awful way of assessing children you'd be hard pushed to come up with an alternative to the 11+.

All those saying 'but grammar schools are great', well yes, of course they are! It's easy when you syphon off the highest-achieving whatever percentage of children (as assessed by the 11+ at least) and educate them separately. The issue is that the minority of children are benefiting at the majority's expense, because that majority have to attend less good schools than they otherwise would. Can't we do better than that?

The other selection locally is by religion. The only C of E secondary is in a different town so it’s popular with parents as it requires 2 years weekly church attendance yr 4 and 5 and an expensive school bus pass. It’s popular because standards and results are high - the sort of parents that tutor for 11+ are the same sort that will jump through religious hoops.
DC’s grammar is far more racially diverse than our area and any of the other schools because the 25% from OOC come from surrounding towns with more diverse populations.

People who have money can always do whatever they can to give their kid a 'leg up'. I don't hold it against them, but I do hate the fact that there are 'winners' and 'losers' in the 11+ situation.

My area is out of catchment for all but one grammar (and that one grammar has a very large catchment area, which is aspirational but means it's the only grammar on offer for many of the poorest kids, and the distance itself is limiting). We didn't consider schools when moving here, DH's family are from here. The secondary schools in my catchment are notoriously poor performing, with the usual groans about pupil behaviour, etc. I've been to an inner London comp and visited many for work, these schools are dire in comparison. The catchment line for the closest grammar is a stones throw away. Cross that line, house/rent prices explode. That's understandable. So what actually happens = parents of all income brackets will tutor their kids for the 11+/selective private school bursary (quite like Kent). If they have a bit more money, they'd save to move house into a grammar school catchment, or move house to an area where the average comprehensive school performs way better than our best school. I'm sure many pupils will feel 'left behind', and that's the saddest part about the current system.

However, I do find it interesting when people condemn the 11+ (grammar/private) school system but those same people live in areas with decent comprehensives. In many areas, the area itself is self-selective. There's a reason why many parents around here move their kids in year 4/5, but again, only the ones who can afford to. Ultimately, we need to focus on poor performing schools, so that grammars aren't so starkly advantageous. Getting rid of grammars before doing that would be dumb imo.

The schools in my area are dire in comparison to the inner London schools*

How do people propose to make the test impossible to tutor for?

@SynchOrSwim

How do people propose to make the test impossible to tutor for?

Randomise it. Introduce different elements every year. Make it so unpredictable that tutoring becomes pointless.

The grammar school system is broken. My working class Dad got into a Northern grammar school and went on to Oxford.

When he took his 11+ no one was tutored.

The tutoring makes a nonsense of the grammar school system.

I don't think ds14 would have passed the 11+ without tutoring. However, he is clever like my Dad and despite being at the local under-performing comp, is doing really well.

I am pleased my son will have the confidence that comes from knowing everything he has achieved is 100% his own.

I still don't get what you mean? Different subjects like history and geography, instead of the maths/English/VR/NVR?

I don’t see how you can make 11+ un tutorable.
Exam technique absolutely can be taught - familiarisation with sitting at a desk in a timed set up, with putting lines in boxes, checking how many questions versus time, attempting all multiple choice etc.
Reading widely. Left to own devices children tend to pick popular and easy books, they need to read classics for comprehension and VR. I enjoy reading as does DD so used to order DD books from library etc. I’d have done anyway but gave her a big advantage for 11+
Things like games, puzzles, crosswords all teach 11+ skills.
So just as mumsnetters now say oh we didn’t tutor we just familiarised her using bond books it would be we didn’t tutor we just played games and of course she read.

People who have money can always do whatever they can to give their kid a 'leg up'

It’s not even just money, it could be time or education. Parents will do what is in their power to give their children the best start. We didn’t have the money to pay someone to come and do tutoring, but had the knowledge and time to work with DC at home. Reading widely, exam technique, past papers etc. All our DC passed the 11+.

I think the 11+ system is inherently wrong and favours those whose parents can afford tutoring.

Therefore I am a hypocrite because DD starts at a grammar school this year. I wish the system didn't exist but it does, and our local comprehensives are mediocre, so we have taken advantage of it. The school she's going to is the best in the city - what else can you do.

It's the tutoring situation that really gets me though. When I sat the 11+ in the 80s nobody had private tutoring, it was some practice papers from whsmith and so a more level playing field. Now, pretty much child who sits the exam has been tutored - I only know of one last year who wasn't (but her parents are both teachers, so they did it themselves.) I really would have preferred not to have forked out for it, but you feel as if your child will be at a disadvantage if you don't, even if you're confident in their abilities. And so we all perpetuate it amongst ourselves and make it harder for lower income families. I don't feel great about it to be honest.

Someone made a good point here: you probably spend some money on vocational activities for your kids and probably spend more than you would ever on tutoring. Swimming, tennis, dancing, musical instruments. Nobody can do it all but you chose what's important and what the kids "like" - 11+ tutoring is only for 1,5 yrs and a lot of it is actually commitment by the parents rather than the 1 hour lesson a week! Put this in perspective, a lot of parents just tutor their kids alone whilst still holding down a full time job and there are plenty of materials available without a professional tutor. It's not that unfair unless we are really talking about the ultra poor who can't afford to feed their kids and they certainly won't be doing any extra curricular stuff. Teaching in whichever form is about a growth mindset and that's more important. This includes tuition and exam practice. ANY exam practice and techniques on which most certifications /degrees etc are based.....

@harbourlane

I think the 11+ system is inherently wrong and favours those whose parents can afford tutoring.

Therefore I am a hypocrite because DD starts at a grammar school this year. I wish the system didn't exist but it does, and our local comprehensives are mediocre, so we have taken advantage of it. The school she's going to is the best in the city - what else can you do.

It's the tutoring situation that really gets me though. When I sat the 11+ in the 80s nobody had private tutoring, it was some practice papers from whsmith and so a more level playing field. Now, pretty much child who sits the exam has been tutored - I only know of one last year who wasn't (but her parents are both teachers, so they did it themselves.) I really would have preferred not to have forked out for it, but you feel as if your child will be at a disadvantage if you don't, even if you're confident in their abilities. And so we all perpetuate it amongst ourselves and make it harder for lower income families. I don't feel great about it to be honest.

The comps are mediocre because of the grammar. Can't you see that? Without the grammar the more driven families would send their kids to the comp, and its results would Look far better

@Jinglebellsoncake

Sorry if this is a silly question. But what are comprehensive schools like? And why are they considered inferior? Is the teaching poorer? Less academic subjects?

How do they compare to standards secondary schools across the country?

The answer to this question can partially be found a few posts above yours:

The downside is that I massively underestimated how much disruption there would be caused in her classes

When I went to school (comprehensive, no local grammars unless you paid for private, modern buildings and facilities, good/outstanding Ofsted reports, average performance in the league tables, few on FSM) I had my fair share of ducking to avoid flying chairs. It has made me determined that when the time comes I shall move heaven and earth to make sure that my children don't have to share classes with the sort of shits I went to school with.

I went to grammar school in the 80s and nobody was tutored - we just turned up to school & all did the papers.

Lots of working class girls there & on the whole they performed better than the private school girls who got in.

10 out of 90 came from my primary - we were taught in an old fashioned style.

Facilities at grammar school were dire, lessons were quite boring (copy this down girls), teachers have no help if you didn't understand & it was embarrassing to ask as everyone was so clever. I was always middle of the class but assumed I wasn't that clever as I was comparing myself to clever people.

I think instead of criticising the grammar schools we need as a society to value other skills. It doesn't suit everyone to sit still quietly working away. Why are people so obsessed with academic success?

I have two children - one who is extremely bright but hasn't got much confidence & can't make chit chat. The other is middle ability but has great social skills. DD would probably get into grammar school if we had one but DS will probably end up doing better later in life. It's not all about GCSE grades.

My DS goes to a selective independent. A handful of children are asked to find alternative schools if they are not able to keep up after the first year. Most have been tutored to pass the exam but there is no point if the child can’t keep up with the accelerated pace. It doesn’t matter how much money the parents are willing to throw at the system talented children will thrive, those less able will not.
I don’t defend the system. We chose the school initially because of wrap around care in primary school. It became obvious that DS was naturally able and has breezed through. Unfortunately he has worked out just how much work he needs to do to get by but thrives under exam conditions so is happy.
I know a number of parents that pay for extra tuition on top of grammar school or selective independent. I don’t think it does the child any favours and they are often taking the place of a much more capable child. The only fare way to educate children is in a comprehensive system where children are streamed and in ability sets.
Even within an independent selective school the children are taught in groups of similar ability. Each subject at DS’s school is setted at GCSE with Maths and English setted in the lower years. It allows each group to develop at their own pace.
I was state educated in the comprehensive system. I received an excellent education but that was 40 yrs ago. DS’s school is very similar in its approach albeit with smaller classes but with the same discipline and ethos. It is sad that these early state models have been lost.