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?

I grew up in NI with the grammar school system. The difference was that schools taught to the 11+. Primary schools in England’s grammar school regions don’t teach the 11+ style questions, so it’s virtually impossible to access without tutoring or invested parents.

The grammar system stinks; the middle classes have completely hijacked it’s original intentions.

Not sure if I live in the same borough as you. My DH and I grew up in different areas, neither of which had the grammar system so this was a bit of an unknown to us.

The local comp (closest school) had an awful reputation and the local grammar (second closest to us) had a great reputation. We had to do lots of this through word of mouth as no schools had open days due to Covid. I did not want my DS to get to a school though and feel out of his depth so we didn’t have him tutored. DS wanted to go to the grammar as most of his friends wanted to go. He sat the 11+ and fortunately passed comfortably so we were all happy.
DC2 is year 4, so a couple of years before we need to make this decision. We’re not sure if DC2 will be up to the standard (not quite as bright as DC1) or will want to go to grammar but regardless we won’t get them tutored as I want them to get there (if they want to) on their own merit. We will let them have the choice.

It is an odd system but at the end of the day we’re parents who want our children to have the best education available to them, that they are also happy with. We’re fortunate that in the area there are single sex and mixed sex schools of both grammar and non selective so there’s a good choice for them.

My DD is in year 7 at a grammar school. Passed without tutoring.

I am very grateful she is in that environment now, they all seem really driven and dedicated to achieving. I think DD would have struggled in a comp as she just wants to get on with the work not put up with other’s behaviour (which was a huge issue at primary school!)

In a lot of ways, I think grammar is more morally questionable than private education for the reasons you list. State funded classism as opposed to individuals spending their own private wealth. Maybe not historically - I’m sure they were once tools for social mobility. But they’ve been utterly hijacked now. Of course I don’t blame parents: a) you can’t help where you live and b) nobody is going to actively chose to send their DC to a worse school. But overall the concept is outdated and discriminatory.

I agree op and have decided not to go down that route with dd.
Just think it unfair that those who can afford a tutor (us included if we wanted to) have a massive headstart - and doesn't mean they could cope with grammar school or the pressures it brings.
The closest one to us buses kids in from miles away so school friends wouldn't be local.
Really thought about it long and hard and although dd seems quite clever, l am not sure she could handle it nor would lmwant her to be out the house from 7 30am til nearly 5pm every day.

For those that are commenting about their experience growing up: It's definitely changed. Vastly. My mum went to grammar school and I just asked her if there was such a thing as a tutor for the 11+ back then. Absolutely not! Lots of kids round here start at year 4. Some even as young as year 3!

I live in the south east and yes my children all went to the local grammar schools. They had tuition in year 6 because the local primary school understandably didn’t offer it and the actual exam requires the child to understand the concept of VR ,, NVR and Maths . I definitely agree that all children should have access to the same tuition…problem is though is that it is a waste of resources for the children who are not as academic and not good for their self esteem…catch 22 TBH .

I live in a grammar area and tutoring is a huge part in gaining a place. Everyone I know whose child has gone has used tutors but just for varying lengths of time.

My eldest dd has always been bright but I couldn't afford tutors and she missed out on passing by a few marks.

I thought she would be ok as we were just within catchment of a pretty good secondary (bypassing 2 more local awful ones). She enjoys her school, is in the top sets of most subjects and has had access to some schemes that target bright kids in comprehensives in the name of 'levelling the playing field'. The downside is that I massively underestimated how much disruption there would be caused in her classes by kids who have zero interest in school and who often are pretty troubled individuals. The teaching turnover is quite high and I can't blame them based on what I hear. I know how much work teaching is anyway but it must be so stressful with how much added behaviour management is involved.

Looking back I wish I'd taken a loan out to pay for a tutor for her and I often feel like I failed her in not doing so.

My older brother’s kids (one school year apart) wound up with one passing and the other not. Was a bit shit at the time. The one who passed did a STEM degree and bought his first house at 22. The one who didn’t did a STEM degree, then went to drama school, then LAMDA and is an actor. I think familial support counts for a lot. It’s a shit way to classify kids at such a young age but it’s not the end of the world.

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?

@Jaggerdagger

For those that are commenting about their experience growing up: It's definitely changed. Vastly. My mum went to grammar school and I just asked her if there was such a thing as a tutor for the 11+ back then. Absolutely not! Lots of kids round here start at year 4. Some even as young as year 3!

Then the problem isn’t grammar schools but sharp elbowed parents. It’s not beyond the wit of man to devise an exam where the chances of passing can’t be improved with tutoring.

"It is an odd system but at the end of the day we’re parents who want our children to have the best education available to them, that they are also happy with."

Absolutely understand this - and I'm sure I would do the same in your shoes! As mentioned earlier, the system is to blame and while it remains the way it is, parents will have no choice but to to go down that route.

My youngest is only 19. It hasn’t changed that much here. I have friends with kids in their early teens and whilst some kids are tutored most aren’t.

I totally agree with you.

I'm not sure if I'm in the same area as you but in this area children have to opt in to sitting the test. I feel this is unfair for those children capable of passing but who's parents neglect or chose not to register them for the test.
All the children I know who passed this year have received tutoring, they have little chance of passing otherwise as it's curriculum they haven't covered yet

I agree OP, we tutored (once a week for an hour in a group and a couple of practice tests), not sure if we needed to in the end to pass but it clearly helped as DD got a surprisingly good mark. She has two friends who are also very clever and hardworking girls who just missed out on the pass mark, who in a fair world would have a place. However, as others have said, we have struggled our whole lives and want her to have a better start in life than we did, so whilst I feel guilty, I also don't regret it.

I detest the grammar school system.

In my opinion, the only people who support it are those with bright children. Or those who can afford tutoring. And it condemns those who fail to inferior schools, with no option to "move up" beyond the age of 11.

So relieved we don't live in a GS area.

And I have ZERO regrets in sending mine to the grammar. I wanted them to have opportunities I never had. Surely that’s not a bad thing?

@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?

Comprehensives are standard secondaries in none grammar areas. They vary like all schools - some are on a par with the top private institutes for exam results. Some are utterly dire. Generally (but not always) comprehensive schools in grammar school areas are poor because they ‘pick up the kids who couldn’t/didn’t get into grammar’.

Come to NI. We have a completely 2 tier education system with the 11+ (not called that though). Great of you have a academic child not so great if you don't.

Grammar schools were a vehicle for social mobility when they were first introduced.

Now they are disproportionality monopolised by children from middle class families, whose parents know how to play the system - whether this is by tutoring, supporting themselves or paying for private school at primary level.

Of course some children get in without being tutored - that's not the point. The point is that if you take 2 children of equal ability the child from the family that can afford tutoring and to support their child in other ways is significantly more likely to get in that the child from the family that can't. And in a grammar area, the non grammar schools are more likely to be of poorer standard (generally, clearly some are great).

@Inspectorslack

And I have ZERO regrets in sending mine to the grammar. I wanted them to have opportunities I never had. Surely that’s not a bad thing?

Just to make it clear - I'm not slamming parents at all for making the best possible choices for their children. It's totally understandable. It's the unfairness of the test/system itself that I'm focusing on here.

Our entire education system is archaic and should be replaced with the model that we would create if starting from scratch based on today's knowledge of child development.

Rather than political tinkering with a relic we inherited that was created over a century ago based on faulty beliefs about children's cognition at a time when the psychological harm caused to a child spending a decade unable to keep up with their peers was considered irrelevant.

At the time schooling was introduced it was believed that children were just mini-adults who had not yet been taught everything adults know. There was no/limited understanding that a child's cognitive function is different to an adult's and a child's ability to learn and understand certain things is entirely dependent on their developmental stage.

It's divisive and can make those children that don't get in feel that they are inferior.

I agree with you. The whole system does this from day one, though. If we object to it in the context of the 11+ we should object to it in the rest of the system too. We fail children with our current system, whether it's a grammar area or not.

We have the education system we do for political and cultural reasons not because it serves the best interests of children. It fails and damages vast numbers of children every day.

I also think DD would have passed (but not so well) if she had done lots of practice at home with us, but it would have been a nightmare straight off the back of home schooling and not enjoyable for any of us, so we made some cut backs to afford it (£20 pw). But I am incredibly aware that for many, they can't cut back to find the extra cash.

I remember doing the test for the local grammar, I turned up one day at school and it was announced we were doing a test. My daughter did the11+, think that one test on 1 day defines your high school experience is awful. She didn't pass, I was initially upset for her, has gone to the local ( failing by ofsted comp), she loves it, no pressure and expected grades 7-9. My dilemma now we have a v bright ds, seeing how fantastic the local comp is do I really put him through the 11+ ? Who thought that doing this to 10/11 year olds was a good idea in the first place? And I swear it brings the worst out on parents.

@Jinglebellsoncake it probably depends on the schools. But you've got a right mix of pupils and the grammar schools cream the most academic off the top. So the comps have to deal with a broad spectrum of kids, some of whom don't want to be there. The grammars where I live have 100% of pupils getting their gcse's. The comp has 51%.