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 agree the system has changed a lot. Back in the day the brightest kids in the class got in. None of the kids in my DS’s school got into the highly competitive grammars in my area. Kids come from far and wide, I was pretty shocked how far when we went to the open day. As said above my DS is super bright and he applied to Oxford, yet he didn’t get in. Back in the day he would have sailed through. It all worked out fine for him but I sometimes hear people say oh I passed my 11 plus and I think well I wonder if you would the ones by us. The Uber competitive parents have meant that bright local kids cannot get a chance

I agree with your points 1 and 2, but disagree with 3 and 4 and think YABU. Education should be streamed according to academic ability, which it doesn't appear to be in non-selective state schools.

Point 3 - kids know whether they're bright or not. If they don't have a chance of getting into a selective school, their parents shouldn't make them sit the exam. It's also important to teach inner strength - not getting a high enough grade in one exam - albeit an important one - shouldn't be the end of the world. A bit of a disappointment, but not crippling.

Point 4 - do you have any stats to support this?

I agree with what RedskyThisNight says.

Grammar schools were a wonderful vehicle for social mobility, but that is no longer the case in many areas. Where I live it's not unheard of for children to be added to 11+ tutor lists before they start school, with tuition to begin in Year 4 or Year 5. Some tutors charge £50 for a session.

Certain schools are great at coaching for the test but these are not always the independents, particularly the feeder schools or those whose leavers tend to remain in the private sector. Either way, primary schools tend not to cover the Non Verbal Reasoning part of the test so this is where tutoring can make a significant difference. Parents often seem to keen their cards close to their chest to gain a competitive edge.

If applicants are initially rejected by a Grammar and go to an appeal, the panel will be aware of their primary school's ability to prepare the student, and this can be factored into a decision. But only at an appeal.

Sadly, the days when children walked into their 11+ exam uncoached and from a relatively level playing field have gone. Tutoring is the norm, and it comes at a price.

The problem is that state comprehensive (and primary) schools lack the capacity and inclination to help brighter kids achieve their potential.

In fact, the government desire to "close the gap" requires schools to target that the poorest children achieve the fastest progress (they must make more rapid progress than their cohort if the attainment gap is to reduce). Its only possible to do this at the expense of your rapidly progressing most able kids.

Grammar schools are the exception.

No it's not "fair" but neither is a system where bright kids are left to drift along and denied opportunity.

The other thing is it takes away choice.
So we have
Comp or grammar
That’s it for choice. So you can’t choose a best fit for your child unless they pass.
If you had two comps you could at least choose which one is best for your child regardless of how they did on that one day.

I was let down terribly by my high school in England, it was truly awful. I couldn't let my girls go through that and so I'm very grateful for so many excellent grammar schools in NI, where the system seems to be far more accepted and encouraged. I believe everyone will have their own view on the grammar system based on their experience of it, and likewise of the local comps.

Our county isn’t as bad as yours for the number of grammar schools but if anything it makes it worse. 1 boys grammar, 1 girls and 1 mixed so the entire county trying to get those places. Kids driving over an hour to school it’s madness.

I was speaking with a tutor recently, we are not taking 11+ but was looking for catch up tutoring after the past few years.

Tutor said she is really enjoying the new breed of kids she is getting in, there to catch up on gaps rather than cram for 11+. She herself said she despises what the 11+ system has become in the past 10 years. It’s no longer the kids who are naturally bright, just those who are tutored within an inch of their lives on how to answer the questions.

As a result of having so few grammars our comps are actually OK, as so many very bright kids don’t pass and go to the comps

Certain schools are great at coaching for the test but these are not always the independents, particularly the feeder schools or those whose leavers tend to remain in the private sector. Either way, primary schools tend not to cover the Non Verbal Reasoning part of the test so this is where tutoring can make a significant difference

State aren’t allowed to tutor AT ALL
Independents can, and do.

I'm fact, just looking at my daughters primary school prospectus this year and they have given the numbers for how many pupils went on to which schools in the area. Out of 60 students, only 9 went on to a comp or high school, the rest have all proceeded to grammar.

I'm sorry to hear of your experience but it has made me feel better that we chose not to go down this route
My eldest son is very clever, not boasting he is. Especially in maths. Very natural. Never been tutored just always got it. His teachers couldn't believe we weren't putting him forward for it (we live in an area where probably 90% of the year group sit the exam). We chose not to as we knew how much pressure he would put on himself and felt that he would work himself up so much and stress that he might fall apart on the day. And then if he didn't get in he would've been devasted
As it went, he didn't sit it and only very few children from his class passed.
My neighbour openly told me how disappointed she was with her son for not passing and said how many thousands they had spent on tutoring. As the test got closer they had a tutor there every weeknight

As a result of having so few grammars our comps are actually OK, as so many very bright kids don’t pass and go to the comps

Smart comps will be running with that and embracing it as things change. There will be more kids who would have passed 5+ years ago in the comp. So if you can send them down the right path they should be able to get them the same results

However our comp still doesn’t offer the same Latin, sociology, psychology, mandarin as the local grammar.

@EvilPea

Certain schools are great at coaching for the test but these are not always the independents, particularly the feeder schools or those whose leavers tend to remain in the private sector. Either way, primary schools tend not to cover the Non Verbal Reasoning part of the test so this is where tutoring can make a significant difference

State aren’t allowed to tutor AT ALL
Independents can, and do.

I should have said preparing rather than coaching. Some states absolutely do this, just as some indies categorically do not.

YANBU. My mum from a poor working class family passed the 11+ back in the days in the 50s when the whole primary class sat it and no one did extra prep. Now, in the same city, most grammars shut so the few remaining are fiercely competitive. I correctly predicted all the children who got into the grammars from my DC's years at primary back in foundation, based on what their parents did for a living. Lots of private primaries in the city as well, set up to prep for the 11+. Very bright hard working children with ESL don't even get a look in as the primaries don't tell parents how to apply for the 11+. You really have to be in the know to navigate the system.

We live in a grammar school area. Around here, tutoring is very common, I don't know of any child who didn't do plenty of preparation for the test. Ridiculous really, because all these children were already bright, most had graduate parents or from homes where education was highly valued etc. Just madness, but you get sucked into the system, you don't want your child to be the only non tutored one.

Both our DDs were tutored, though their tutor said on day one that he 'couldn't teach IQ' and all he could do was teach them good technique and a few tricks of the trade. I very much doubt our DDs needed the tutoring (or any of their friends) but I suppose it did mean they walked into the test very confidently.

Having said all that, plenty of children who were tutored still didn't pass? So tutoring isn't the magic wand that some people assume it to be.

Both our DDs have been through the grammar school system, but I'm not especially enamoured of it anymore. I won't deny that pupils attain excellent results, but they're essentially just Exam Factories. Teachers aren't really interested in explaining more than once, pupils are just expected to keep up. Pupils aren't taught to love learning, they're drilled in how to pass exams, and they do it extremely well.

It's a dry, relentless, unforgiving way to learn. But it garners results if what you're after is just a slew of great GCSEs and A Levels.

I grew up in a grammar school area and passed the 11+. I don't know anyone who had tutoring back then. I just remember doing a few practice papers in class. It wasn't made out to be a big deal. Some passed, some didn't. Grammar schools seemed to be a good leveller - we had lots of kids from the poorer areas near us attending, plenty on FSM and so on. It has changed a lot in the past 30 years, and not for the better. I have friends putting their kids through the 11+ now and it is crazy - Saturday schools, tutoring, sitting multiple papers for different areas.

I grew up in a grammar school area with undiagnosed dyslexia, so during primary school I was always at the bottom and lost a lot of interest very quickly in education. I was picked on my the smarter kids on a regular basis for being "thick". I didn't take the 11+ (had no hope of passing).

I went to the local average comp, and was so relieved to be away from the smarter kids picking on me. Took an interest in school again, nice group of friends and by the time I left had made my way to the top sets, had all my GCSE's (not a's but all above c and enough for me to eventually bag a degree and a decent career)

I honestly dread to think what my schooling would have been like had the smarter kids been at the same school. I certainly would never have made it to the top sets (which at the time was a massive boost in my confidence)

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

In which case you were referring to the wrong Act. HTH.

@User112

My son attends a grammar school and I agree it’s very unfair on bright poor kids who cannot afford tutoring.

It's unfair on all kids, not just the bright ones. It creates a totally unfair education system.

@lotsofdogshere

I loathe the grammar school system. All children should have excellent education. No children should be labelled failures at 11

I agree entirely.

I find it rather depressing that 29% of posters agree with this divisive system. I am so thankful that we have no state grammar schools in our county. As a result we have some rather good comprehensive schools. DD did exceptionally well from a comprehensive education.

I went to a grammar school. There is no way my parents could afford private.

DH went to private boarding school.

We can afford private school for the DCs but our plan is:

1. Tutoring for 11+ exams
2. Grammar school if they get in
3. Private school if they don’t get into grammar school
4. 6th form private school if they attend grammar school

If my kids hadn’t gone to grammar they’d have really struggled to see beyond the poor area we live in.

They were given a good education that has opened doors for them.

They wouldn’t have got that with High school and FE college in the same way at all. I know because I failed my 11 plus (chaotic house poor parents no value on education) and that’s the life I had.

I wanted more for my children.

Tutoring doesnt make as much difference as people think.

Lots of tutored children still don't pass. Many of those who do would have passed anyway. You can't polish a turd.

There's probably a small subset of children who are very borderline for whom perhaps tutoring makes a difference.

Remember to that a "great" school isnt necessarily one that got an intake of bright kids to get 100% GCSE passes.

A school with a very un-academic intake that gets half those kids through GCSE has probably made better progress with better teaching etc. Facilities in grammars where I live are no better than the local state schools. They offer slightly different subjects based on student preferences and abilities.

6th form private school if they attend grammar school

Why? They’ll stand a better chance of a good university place from a state school.

@lotsofdogshere

I loathe the grammar school system. All children should have excellent education. No children should be labelled failures at 11

It would be nice if all children received an excellent education, according to their potential (the technical schools which should have been the third part of the tripartite system were a missed opportunity).

In reality what happens is that everything is equally mediocre. Liverpool's grammar schools used to send plenty of kids to Oxbridge - ordinary working class children. When the system was abolished there, many cohorts produced none at all.

What needs to happen is that the 11+ tests need to be made so that they are impossible to coach for. Make them so unpredictable that they are a true reflection of the abilities of each candidate.

I should have said preparing rather than coaching. Some states absolutely do this, just as some indies categorically do not

State should not be doing this, they are not allowed to. The most they can do is offer it as an outside sourced after school club.