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?

Interesting thread.

Many moons ago, I sat the 11+ and failed. I will never forget the look of disappointment in my dp's eyes. I have also carried a sense of failure with me ever since. I tend to feel intimidated by intellectual people and those in high powered jobs.

My eldest dc also failed the 11+ despite being tutored for several years.

Some people are academic and have a natural ability. Their best is an A* while someone less able can only hope to achieve a C.

I agree it’s unfair.
I am paying for a tutor (65 quid/hour!) for the 11 plus at the moment. It is a lot of extra work, albeit useful stuff to know. I really don’t know what the answer is though as I am in a grammar area. I wouldn’t ever drop my daughter in it and leave them to it without tutoring since most seem to be at it.

I am so glad I don't live in a grammar area. I could probably afford to send my DC private but I don't. I really believe in comprehensive education for all.
I think my DD gets a good education at her state comprehensive school. When we talk about the work she's doing it's really interesting, she has some great teachers and a nice bunch of friends.

My grandad a long time ago passed his 11+ and still couldn't go to grammar because his family were too poor to afford the uniform and didn't believe in education. It never held him back in life. He was an incredible entrepreneurial man and put his brain to work in business. By the end of his life he owned multiple shops, properties and businesses including a cinema.

I do believe that if you have the ability and initiative you will succeed and that it's best not to have everything given to you too easily. I also think it's good for us all to mix with people from different situations and not to exist in a rarefied bubble
That's how you get the Boris Johnsons and Jacob Rees Moggs of this world.

It's disgraceful.
Even in the olden days grammar schools were full of kids from private schools/ tutoring and hardly any from the bog standard junior school ( well, that was my experience)
University education is similarly unachievable for many. The grant doesn't cover anything like the living costs imo and many parents simply can't afford to top up. Lucky students who don't have to work all hours and worry.

I did the 11+ and went to grammar school.

This was 35 years ago.

There was no tutoring - or even tutors available for the 11+.

We did a weekly practise paper at school when we started what would now be year 6. There was no particular pressure it was just another weekly lesson.

Tests were all verbal reasoning so mostly you didn't need to have been taught anything. The answers could be worked out mostly through logic. A good vocabulary and understanding of how the questions worked was helpful though.

There was no massive pressure - nothing more than for a normal test anyway. The system actually worked pretty well.

It's not the 11+ and grammar system that's the problem. It's what parents have done to it to make it unfair.

I totally agree, but as the system currently operates that way and there are 4 boys grammars nearby we did what everyone else does and tutored our two boys for it. They both got a very good pass. Interestingly one was very unhappy (not struggling academically but just didn't feel he fitted in) and we moved him in Year 8 to a non grammar where he's very happy and doing really well. I'd be very happy to see this system abolished although with Grammar streaming still in place.

Grammar should be decided by the teachers in primary school, who see the children day in and day out.

A test for a 10 yr old is nonsense, as it so often now doesn't sort the brightest fairly. Due to tutoring and stress of an exam for some 10 yr olds. They're too young.

It only took one parent to get the tutoring ball rolling. Then their friend joined in to make sure Bob wasn't ahead of their susie. And so on. A friend of mine once said 'I never ever wanted to tutor my child to pass the 11plus, but if I don't, she will be the Only child in the class not being tutored.'

I agree that every child should have access to a good school and one which can meet their needs. I say that as someone who went to a failing school (has only come out of special measures in the last decade and I'm in my 50s) and underachieved at school. My DS and DD go to a comp which is "ok" - I feel sad that it's a bit of a compromise but we can't afford private and it's their local school.

I suffered terribly as an academic child in an eighties comp (non-Grammar School area). There were behaviour issues all around, time-wasting, bullying, low expectations, and it has impacted me massively way into my adult life.

I will definitely be letting my children sit the 11+ for the local grammar, if they want to.

I’m in Northern Ireland - 4 kids, none tutored (couldn’t afford it), all passed and went to Grammar school - 2 still there. They have witnessed kids who were heavily tutored to pass the ‘11 plus’ struggle from day one. Grammar schools are aimed at academic achievement and Comprehensives at skills and trades and allow non-academic kids alternatives which Grammars don’t - Grammars look solely at A Levels and Uni and this can be very limiting.

Yeah, it stinks, and there are excellent reasons why it was largely done away with years ago. I say this as someone whose child recently passed an 11+ type exam and who I did indeed employ the services of a private tutor. I'd be delighted for my kids to attend a true comprehensive, less delighted for them to attend a sub comprehensive at which many of the brightest/most affluent/whatever kids have already been creamed off to go elsewhere.

@Lovinglife45

Interesting thread.

Many moons ago, I sat the 11+ and failed. I will never forget the look of disappointment in my dp's eyes. I have also carried a sense of failure with me ever since. I tend to feel intimidated by intellectual people and those in high powered jobs.

My eldest dc also failed the 11+ despite being tutored for several years.

Some people are academic and have a natural ability. Their best is an A* while someone less able can only hope to achieve a C.

I think this is the biggest problem I have with the grammar school system, really. I find it interesting that so much of the conversation (both for and against) seems to come from parents whose children do pass, or expect their children will pass. IMO labelling children as failures at 11 is unforgivable, and i don't think there's a way of the 11+ avoiding this.

I grew up in a comprehensive area, although with a selective school within reach. My mother would not let me sit the exam (i was an extremely academic child and it was broadly accepted i would have passed, although obvs nothing is guaranteed). I resented it at the time but I'm very grateful now.

My DC1 would not pass, I'm glad he won't have to try.

This is why the tripartite system was abolished in the 1970s. It fails most children and wastes talent.

The leftover few areas who offer a kind of half and half system with a few super competitive grammars next to so called comprehensives is even more unfair and the unhealthy tutoring culture it encourages only benefits the middle classes who can throw money at it. It is in effect a government subsidised private school system.

Much better to do away with this anachronistic leftover and have a properly comprehensive system everywhere. We might have half a chance of a decent education for all then. Of course that depends on proper funding for education which we all need to vote for, but the current half assed system operating in these so called grammar areas only ends up funnelling the lion's share of resources to the privileged and leaves even less for the disadvantaged.

The best way to get rid of the separation would be to work to improve the comprehensives so that the need for Grammars becomes obsolete.

I dunno. I grew up with the 11+ in NI. Effectively all children were coached in how to take the exam during the school day. So it's more like England's patchwork system makes it extra unfair in areas where there are mixed systems as the 11+ doesn't get taught in schools.

What's the solution when education isn't well funded yet still has shitty target driven metrics? In many schools the focus is on getting kids up than pushing those with greater ability.

YANBU it strips other schools of high achievers which also disadvantages comp kids.

The whole thing should be reformed. It's akin to private school, another option I detest due to the inequality of it.

It's difficult though because all the while grammars are there, parents will, understandably fight for places due to the effect it has on the school system and wanting the best for our kids.

But obviously the government won't do anything as they've all gone to and benefited from private school so they won't acknowledge the inequality at play with grammars (let alone private)

DH and I both went to grammar (in with no tutoring and didn't know anyone who was tutored) but now live in a non-grammar area.

Wish we were in a grammar area personally as DC are academic and honestly I'd rather they went to grammars. We're looking at selective private schools but it's a big expense for us and we're clueless about the private system.

YABU. My mum couldn’t really afford tutoring but just decided to cut down on luxurious for a few months so my sister and I could have it. Life isn’t fair and kids have to learn that sadly. In fact, only I passed but my sister got a full scholarship to a local private school. Sometimes it’s down to priorities and not whether you choose to have a nice mobile phone and Sky TV 🤷‍♀️

*luxuries. Blooming autocorrect.

I live in Kent and pretty sure you do too!

I think the original idea was good, to enable bright working class kids social mobility they otherwise wouldn’t have had in a comp which really at the time was focussed on preparing kids for traditional working class jobs.

Now it’s totally changed, as someone else pointed out the test is on Y6 work which hasn’t been taught yet - you have to tutor. How much you tutor is completely dependant on your household income and secondly your ambition for your child. I know of people who have tutored for several years. This is not marrying up to the original idea of giving poor, disadvantaged kids a leg up, it’s allowing affluent parents to access selective education without paying private school fees.

My son is SEN but is incredibly bright, but his SEN means he takes longer to take exams, the 11+ exam board refused him extra time, says it all really. We could have appealed as he wasn’t far off but felt that it might not be the most supportive setting in the end. I think grammars are good for a certain type of effortlessly academic children but make others within the same school feel like a failure. I say that on the back of my own time at grammar, where I know certain others felt like failures and it’s affected the rest of their lives having talked to them since.

Great idea decades ago, but now not fit for purpose.

I think it should be flipped.

The least able kids, not the best able, streamlined into education with rigorous standards, smaller classes etc

Removes the desirability of grammars for the rich, focuses the effort where it's most needed. And smart kids don't suffer for being in general education so long as the teachers have the capacity to stretch them and a non-disruptive environment.

@StickerPlace

DH and I both went to grammar (in with no tutoring and didn't know anyone who was tutored) but now live in a non-grammar area.

Wish we were in a grammar area personally as DC are academic and honestly I'd rather they went to grammars. We're looking at selective private schools but it's a big expense for us and we're clueless about the private system.

Why do you think your academic children won't thrive in a comprehensive? You do know there are thousands and thousands of cases of children who do, don't you? Children who simply end up at the top of the pile for 7 years (and enjoy that sensation). And go on to Oxbridge and other great places. And at the same time as a bonus mix with people who don't? Because that's life isn't it? You want a mix and an ability to get on with anyone whatever their GCSE prospects. Those are the people who will cut your hair and sell you your home, and fix it once you buy it. So why do you fear what will happen to your academic children?

I just wonder whether those parents who live in a town with good Comprehensives, with no grammars or private schools in sight, clamour for a return of the old system? Despite what you read on MN - good comprehensives do exist.

I took the 11 plus 30 years ago and didn’t have a tutor and passed. I hate this argument now though as it’s a totally different ball game. I know of a child who has been tutored twice a week from year 3. He is in bottom sets in maths & English at school yet he has passed. You can absolutely train to pass the non verbal reasoning and some of the verbal reasoning stuff. There are so many tricks to answering questions quickly (and speed is the essence with this test). The comprehensive side is more difficult to pass unless you are bright but if you score high enough on other parts you will pass. My friend is a teacher at our local grammar and has said you can absolutely tell who has been over tutored and they struggle to keep up.

Education isn't fair. Whether Grammar / Secondary Modern or Comprehensive.

Some comprehensive schools are great and some are dire.

Great comprehensive schools tend to be in expensive areas. So you can buy your way in by buying an expensive house in the catchment area.

Whether they are great (or get great results) or not may also be because of those middle class parents who tutor, and complain when things aren't right.

But there many dire, frankly scary comprehensive schools, in much poorer areas. For the keen-to-learn DC in those schools it is not fair. They did not choose to live where they do.

Both of my DC went to our local Grammars. A friend had a DS at Grammar and a DD at the Secondary Modern - they got comparable GCSEs and A Levels.

The Secondary Modern is in an affluent area with parents who pay for tutors. The top streams have lots of resources and are pushed. In my friend's case her DD felt super bright because she was top sets all the way. Her confidence grew and she is now headed for a 2.1 in an RG University. If the Grammar School 'lot' were there she wouldn't have been in that position.

Trafford as an authority, with its Grammar system, previously got some of the best GCSE results in the country.

IMO the most unfair aspect is the impact of disruptive children. As a PP said, one of the joys of DC moving on to Grammar school is leaving them behind.

Having your education wasted because of one or two disruptive children is REALLY unfair.

Maybe that's what needs to be tackled.