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?

@pukkapine

I agree in so many ways. Suspect we are in the same area as you. DS is in Y11 of a super selective. He got in with two marks off full on the 11+ but he did have some tutoring that summer before the exam.

However what we have found since he got there has shocked me and meant I chose to send my younger two children to a comp, although this comp is out of the grammar area so truly has the full spectrum of kids (we are on the border). Basically well over 50% of DS class went to prep school. A large proportion of the remaining have very wealthy parents with a SAHP who basically lives for their child's education. It is not reflective of thd child's innate ability.

DS who lives in a 4 bed semi, has the odd foreign hol and certainly doesn't wish for anything seems poor alongside his peers. Fortunately he's not the sort to care, but I have had to take steps to show him how fortunate he actually is as I worry his school life is a total bubble. They will likely all be given cars for their 17th bday and it's as likely to hang in the garden or pool room with his mates as it is to head to the park for most his age. There's minimal social mobility going on in the majority that's for sure.

At primary level the tutoring is now insane. The comps suffer because they lose that 10% of highly motivated engaged achievers which can positively balance a school. When I was at school we just turned up one day and sat the 11+. No one tutored so it was a fair reflection of ability.

My younger two are not in grammar but in a large comprehensive which doesn't suffer from being in a grammar area because it's over the border and only the very highest achievers leave the area to go out of county to grammar. One of my younger two is easily 'grammar school material' and this is recognised in school and I'd say she's getting a fast paced education like DS and is in a 'Latin stream'. We felt, given DS experience, that she would thrive more without the pressure of a grammar (she puts enough on herself) and so far that's proving to be the right decision. But having been at the top of he village primary so many couldn't believe we were taking that decision.

We can't change where we live and of course we can't turn back time and we are very fortunate that all of our children are very happy and achieving well at school,but I wish we weren't in a grammar area and that's with one child benefiting enormously from its existence. I just don't think they are fair in so many different ways. It's possible to deliver a fast paced academically focused education to high achievers without it and that is fairer.

Interesting post

We use a comp for one dc in London and I’m very relieved to be outside the grammar system.

I think one dc would have been fine with it but the other has hugely benefited from lower pressure in comp and is now doing a good range of A levels (inc FM so four)

I know we often live where we live and it’s lucky if the schools work for our dc but I’d not choose to go to grammar system - there were a fair few parents who made this move earlier on to do this

My daughter struggled with 11+ type exams. She failed one and scraped another. But I. Her mocks she got all 7s to 9s so would have been perfectly fine in the school she failed to get in to.
She’s not good at Maths and puzzle solving, which there’s a lot of in these exams. But she’s good at English and Humanities.

We still have grammars here, and I did hear a few years ago that the 11 plus had changed from purely verbal reasoning tests, to older style maths and English papers. Apparently too many who scored very highly in the VR tests, could barely write a coherent sentence, so remedial English classes were needed at the grammars.

Our dds both passed the 11 plus (long ago now) but I still dislike the system. Tutoring was still very much a thing then, so why state school children weren’t also given VR practice, I will never understand. The line about training not being needed, is rubbish.

We had lived abroad until dd1 was 10 - she had exactly one term before the 11 plus, and until that September had never even seen a VR test. With daily practice her scores went from roughly 40% to 90%. And no, she didn’t remotely ‘struggle’ at her senior school - she got good A levels and went to a RG university.

And yet a friend of MiL, who ran a small private prep school, had told us at the time, that VR training would make no difference - the tests were designed to detect potential.

I did the 11 plus, and do still think of the poor girl in my class who turned over 2 pages of the test booklet by mistake, and only realised shortly before the end.
She ended up at the very worst secondary modern - the one that was a by-word for ‘rough’.

I am going to ramble on a little more (put it down to my age), however, the secondary modern school that I attended in the early to mid- seventies, was a reflection of the old system.

The children who attended had to have failed their 11+. In the fourth yea (Year 10) children were taken on a visit to the local factory, because that was where most of the pupils would end up. It was not a disaster. In previous generations, it would have been possible to work your way up from the shop-floor, to management and even executive roles (if you were lucky).
The teachers were, upon reflection, those teachers who did not quite make the grade to teach in the grammar schools. They were laid back and did not really expect too much from the pupils.
There were behavioural issues, perhaps not so obvious in the classroom, but certainly outside. There was an awful lot of poor engagement.
It was part of a system; a system that was designed for a world that no longer exists. The school that I attended was a school for the children who would work in the factories, work in the mills, work in whatever the local industries were. There were night schools and colleges designed to help the workforce to improve their education and move up the social ladder a little, and further education was opening its doors, with the help of grants, to young people who wanted to continue to learn.
The old industries have gone, and the education system was supposed to have been reformed even at the time I was going to school. It really does amaze me that there are still areas in which the 11+ and the grammar school system still exists.

Apologies for typing errors.

@peaceanddove

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.

Thanks for this. As a teacher in a grammar school I find it massively offensive. Your children’s experience (or what they chose to tell you of it and what you have inferred from there) is anecdotal.

I often hear stuff like this repeated by parents whose children didn’t get in- “It’s an exam factory/ hot house/ doesn’t care about the kids, only results” etc. They use it to make themselves feel better because it’s absolute crap. Rather than insulting and diminishing our teaching, the best thing to do would be to choose the best school for your individual child rather than getting hung up on grammar or not, and then support them all the way.

I live in a grammar school area, the same I grew up and things have changed since then, a lot.

I passed my 11+ with no tutoring and went to grammar, however, the curriculum was taught in the school and all children were expected to sit the exam. This itself has problems (children labelled as failures etc), but it did give a fair and equal chance to all children in the school, regardless of class to attend a grammar school. Tutoring wasn't a thing.

Now I have my own children living in this area I have seen how many issues have developed over the years. House prices are ridiculous, meaning only those who can afford to live in the area have even a chance of attending (very little social housing). Tutoring is a must or there is no chance. Most parents start at year 4 so it's a huge cost.

I can afford to live here and the tutoring (just about) but I know there are many of DDs classmates that do not have this advantage and yes it does stink. Yet I will still be forking out for it. Double standards absolutely, but this is the whole issue with the system.

I didn't know the 11+ still existed until o came to mumsnet!

One thing that would be obvious to help would be to teach it in primary schools.
No idea why they stopped it and would level the playing field a bit.

Both my children passed grammar and we wanted them to because our comp was awful.
Before my children went to grammar, I was very much in the camp that the system was appaulling and all local schools should be great and there shouldn't be grammar schools.
But now they are there - I still believe all schools should be great but I do see how a select school with children of similar ability is a better school environment for my son. He is very quiet and I don't think he would have done as well at a large comp.
But if I had to vote on things I would vote against the current grammar system as I don't think its right to put 11/10 years olds through the 11 plus.

I really don't think that the old grammar school system was designed for working class mobility. They were mostly schools for the middle class with a few lucky bright working class children. After the 1944 Education Act the option of paying to go to the Grammar School if you didn't pass the Scholarship was gone and the 11+ became hugely unpopular because too many middle class children failed.

However, just banging the name Comprehensive on a poor Secondary Mod didn't make it one. There were some good seconday mods though. Grammar schools weren't the havens of wonderfully studious children either - they too were a decidely mixed bag.

@Smileyaxolotl1

One thing that would be obvious to help would be to teach it in primary schools. No idea why they stopped it and would level the playing field a bit.

What do you mean by ‘it’?

I often hear stuff like this repeated by parents whose children didn’t get in- “It’s an exam factory/ hot house/ doesn’t care about the kids, only results” etc. They use it to make themselves feel better because it’s absolute crap. Rather than insulting and diminishing our teaching, the best thing to do would be to choose the best school for your individual child rather than getting hung up on grammar or not, and then support them all the way.

I can see the post has prompted this response but outside the teaching I think the downside is dc who benefit from a full comprehensive not having access to this option.

Just looking at dc path through school, which has improved year on year, part of that was not having top percent taken away.

Think @Smileyaxolotl1can only mean exam techniques. This isn't something I'd want my children taught at primary school. And couldn't work on a national curriculum level since only a tiny proportion of the country have grammars (something you'd never guess from reading MN!!)

I think it should be flipped.

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

Does this not happen ? Last time I looked SEN school had tiny classes.

DS is in yr13 of a Kent SS , very little social mix, amazing facilities. Yes average parental contribution is something like £40 pcm. Asked for as a direct debit.

@ittakes2 I agree with you on that. The question is if we provide a different approach to education for different types of children, which I think is a good idea, how do we divide who goes to each type of school. There will never be a perfect system which works for everyone.

Without the 11+ we have a comprehensive system within which the selection is by religion or by wealth as house prices increase within catchment areas for good schools. This is no better so social inclusion than 11+. In fact in a lot of areas it is worse as very clever children from a poor background have no chance of accessing good schools.

But @Jaggerdagger parental finances come into play with comprehensive schools too. Wealthy families can buy expensive houses close to the best comprehensive schools.

And those pushy parents help to keep those schools successful.

Last time I looked SEN school had tiny classes

For a tiny number of children!

You do understand how difficult it is for parents to get children into one of these? There are thousands and thousands of children with SEN who are being taught in classes of 30+.

@Neurodiversitydoctor

I think it should be flipped.

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

Does this not happen ? Last time I looked SEN school had tiny classes.

DS is in yr13 of a Kent SS , very little social mix, amazing facilities. Yes average parental contribution is something like £40 pcm. Asked for as a direct debit.

Not SEN. Children who are behind academically for reasons outside of SEN.

Ones who would benefit from the time and attention to bring their skills up to the norm - e.g. writing, reading - the fundamentals.

Sorry.
My post wasn’t clear. I think in boroughs/counties where the grammar school exists the children should all have a chance to go through the papers in school time.
Then it would alleviate some of the advantage of the kids with wealthier backgrounds/switched on parents

@lotsofdogshere

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

Grammar schools cater to those with higher IQs's the average in the Uk is 100. At a selective grammar school, the entrance test ensures that the pupils have an IQ of >120 and fall in the top 10% of the population.

Subjecting all pupils to those levels of education and expectation is a pressure they don't need.

On a personal note, I went to grammar, wasted my time, it wasn't till later in life I became interested in higher education. Not going to grammar school doesn't mean a life of failure. My eldest daughter didn't want to take the test, she'd much rather follow her friends to the local comp.

I know Warwickshire and Gloucestershire are Grammar school counties.

Herefordshire and Worcestershire definitely are not (so have thriving private schools).

What counties do and don't have them?

It's a world I'm not aware of having not grown up in a grammar school area. The comprehensives are good in H&W with many oxbridge candidates.

@Smileyaxolotl1

Sorry. My post wasn’t clear. I think in boroughs/counties where the grammar school exists the children should all have a chance to go through the papers in school time. Then it would alleviate some of the advantage of the kids with wealthier backgrounds/switched on parents

As a primary school teacher-I say no to that.

It’s not on the curriculum and there isn’t time. That also opens itself up to parents complaining that some schools are doing more than others. Who is liable when their child doesn’t pass?

What about schools that aren’t in catchment but are on the edge and still have children applying?

What about all the schools who don’t do it as they’re not in grammar areas and they then have lots more time to dedicate to the curriculum, get better results and ‘impress’ Ofsted?

This is not another job for state primary schools to pick up.

@Jaggerdagger

For the poster that enquired as to whether or not I am employed at a grammar school: No, I'm not. Without risk of giving too much away, my job involves visiting lots of different types of schools and coming into contact with children of different ages and backgrounds. I teach one girl who was tutored up to the nines to get into the single sex grammar school in our town. She actually failed by one mark but won an appeal. Every time I see her, she mentions how she is struggling to keep up with her peers and feels embarrassed. Now in her GCSE year, her parents pay for extra tutors across all core subjects. She has to study every single day, including Sundays and school holidays. She is often in tears and not eating over the stress. I am absolutely convinced that she would have thrived in one of the comprehensives instead. This girl is just one example of how the system can actually fail children from middle class backgrounds who would be better off elsewhere, but because going to grammar school is seen as "the thing to do", parents will throw money at tutoring.

It’s not the system that’s the problem in this case. It’s the wilful blindness of the parents. The system is fine, it’s the parents playing it that are the problem. The 11+ needs to be reformed so the chances of passing it can’t be improved with tutoring.

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)

Gettingthem - there was a Labour government in power for 13 years. Why didn’t they do something about it?