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?

@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?

This is about the other children harmed in the process. Why would you try and make it about yourself?

It should be perfectly possible for your children to have great educational opportunities without other children being collateral damage.

@RedskyThisNight

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).

I agree with this. And as long as the system prevails, parents that can afford it will of course go down that route.

It’s a very unfair system. My DS did sit the test (think I’m in the same areas as you), but I didn’t have him tutored as his back up option was an excellent secondary anyway. He didn’t get in, but he got 9x9’s - couple of 8’s in his GCSE and so I don’t think he could have done any better. A friends son went to one of the grammars and hated it, he’s now in my son’s secondary sixth form, she won’t be going down the grammar route with her younger two.

My DD did not want to sit the tests. Glad she didn’t as it wouldn’t have suited her

that was created over a century ago

I think you’ll find it was 78 years ago.

So the comps have to deal with a broad spectrum of kids, some of whom don't want to be there.

And why don't they want to be there? Because they've been damaged by the education system that brought them to that point and their needs are not being met.

I suspect we are in the same area OP and I agree with you, awful and unfair system.

However, I have a DD who is bright and really wants to try for the grammar school. So what do we do? I don’t want to prevent her from trying, and I also think it would be very unfair to put her up against heavily tutors kids without any preparation. She wouldn’t have even SEEN an NVR question if she wasn’t tutored for it. So here we are.

Fortunately I have found a tuition centre that feels very nurturing, she enjoys attending and i feel will be beneficial to her for the extra English and maths support even if she doesn’t pass - particularly following two years of broken education. This is in stark contrast to the centre that we started with that was like a work house. Ridiculous levels of homework and constant testing - we pulled her out after 3 weeks.

Ffs.

My children have enough disadvantage coming from where they do. And being from a poor low income single parent house.

I owe it to them to level them up and do the best for them within the system that exists.

YANBU its a terrible system and very unfair.

Both my DC got into grammar and having a great time so this isn't me being bitter. If I could vote to abolish the system I would. Its not fair for the majority of kids.

@Blossomtoes

that was created over a century ago

I think you’ll find it was 78 years ago.

I was referring to the 1870 Education Act. Hence my references to the wider education system. Hth.

@formalineadeline I very much agree.

@Meatbadger

No tutoring here when I passed the 11+ 30 years ago. I benefitted hugely from my grammar school education and feel very grateful for it. No system is perfect but grammars were designed to give opportunities to those from less well off backgrounds, which in lots of cases they do.

Exactly. The Grammar schools were the most successul part of the tri-partite introduced after WW2, the secondary modern schools were too busy trying to ape the grammar schools and the technical schools never really got off the ground. The Grammar schools gave children like me from working class homes the chance to advance to higher education, I failed the 11 plus but I was given the chance again at 12. Rather than looking to improve the scecondary modern schools the grammar schools were almost destroyed because of their success.

Not sure if you are south east if you are Kent or Sutton. I would say in Sutton 1-3 are arguably true 4 certainly isnt.

That said DD is at a Sutton one and is very happy as are most of her friends - the vibe has changed over the past few years more into what it should be

I struggle to really get too upset about it since very few areas of England have a full 11+ system in place. It is a bit of a relic. It has been replaced by effective selection by postcode which is no better in many areas. Poorer areas have worse schools and poorer educational outcomes, abolishing grammars had not changed that. And now we have to deal with academies and free schools where any nut-job and corporate interest can take over a failing school and pretty much do what they like with it as long as they teach the national curriculum.

@Inspectorslack

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.

Where I am it’s changed in three - five years. It’s now not the bright kids passing, not one from dds year in the top sets, the gifted and talented got in. However, the ones who spent the past few years tutored, the past few months tutored daily. Did.

It is madness.

Dd was utterly destroyed when she got the results, so much so I had to organise some support for her. I thought she was more resilient, she just wanted it so badly and arguably, should have got it from her English and maths skills. But just didn’t pull it out the bag on the day.

The guilt I feel for putting her through it, I will never get over.

@formalineadeline

So the comps have to deal with a broad spectrum of kids, some of whom don't want to be there.

And why don't they want to be there? Because they've been damaged by the education system that brought them to that point and their needs are not being met.

Let's not forget that they almost all have totally unsupportive parents who couldn't care less. The theory of the comprehensive schools was to offer the same to all, it totally ignored parental apathy.

Not even an option in North east where we live. There are no grammars.
Anyone with loads of money sends their kids to private or pays for tutoring in secondary.

I also agree with @eleganz, many people move to very expensive areas to secure a good school, or go down the faith school route when not religious.

I went to a state comprehensive and there were grammar schools in my county. I passed without tutoring but too many passed so I didn't get a space. I've done okay since then.

But I do think grammar schools are full of children who parents can't afford private school but can afford tutoring for their children.

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

Were they though? Really? Or did they just place a respectable veneer on the privileged of society maintaining their status quo?

Is there any evidence that they reduced systemic inequalities? If they improved social mobility on anything other than an anecdotal basis where is the evidence?

If they were genuinely about social mobility then there would not be limitations on places and you would be able to have an entire cohort benefit from the grammar education... and those who didn't make it there wouldn't have been put on the scrapheap.

I live in a medium sized town. The private schools and grammar schools in the area actually outweigh the comprehensive schools in number, within a 3 mile radius. Hence point number 4 in my OP.

A friend of mine has daughter who wasn’t tutored ,lives on a notorious estate in our town and has absolutely thrived at Grammar School…4A* A Levels …it does work if the parents are bothered to support their children in their education.

In my case for my children they reduced systemic inequalities.

But the same thing could be said of other things.
My ds would have loved at 10yo to be picked to play for a football academy as two of his friends were. But:

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?
Those boys had dads who played heavily and had large amount of coaching including 1-2-1 from age 4yo. No children would have got into the academy who hadn't had extensive coaching.

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.
Ditto in football academies. the majority don't get anywhere

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.
Yes, there were several boys who felt a failure against those two that got in.

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.
Not sure why not getting into grammar makes it more likely that parents will opt for private school. Surely in non-grammar areas the parents that want grammar and can afford it just go for private, so more children going private and children who can't afford it can't. Is that actually fairer on the children who can't afford it?

*All my dc go to the bog standard comprehensive, but I don't judge others for choosing private or grammar if they can.

@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!

It has changed, yes, but I voted YABU. Certainly in my area, the reason parents pay for tutoring is that there are now hardly any grammar schools. There used to be loads and loads so children didn’t need tutoring: if they were academic they passed and went to grammar school.

Now passing is not enough by a long chalk. There aren’t enough places for all the children who pass so the grammars take those who pass with the highest mark . Therefore tutoring takes place to ensure your child gets a really good mark not ‘just’ a pass. If every town had a grammar school this wouldn’t be necessary.

Grammars not only have good education and cover subjects many comprehensives don’t, they are largely free of the major problems comps face - poor behaviour and ineffective ways of dealing with it.

I don’t agree it makes children feel inferior if they go to a comp now. Many children are happy and proud to do so. Children can feel inferior for lots of reasons - they’re not in the top set for Maths; they didn’t get into the football team; their house isn’t as posh as their friends’ houses, etc. It’s our job to help them deal with those disappointments.

I don’t think grammar schools make comps worse. Many academically able children will still go to the comp because they choose to or their parents don’t agree with grammar schools or for whatever reason.

@Indecisivelurcher

My teacher friend told me tutoring is pretty much necessary because the test is early in yr6 but covers the full yr6 curriculum which of course they have not been taught yet.

This is exactly what my sons teacher told me. She said he wouldn't be able to answer some of the questions if he wasn't tutored as it was on things that the would learn in the latter part of year 6. They take the test at the start of year 6. We live in a grammar school area we chose not to go down that route. Every child that I know of that has or is going to sit the exam is tutored twice a week all through year 5