To think the 11+ is the work of the devil?

[LynetteScavo]

And if you don't agree with me, you're wrong.

Piscesmoon, the 11+ DID help this child from a disadvantaged background and I don't see that it fails to do so still.

I lived in "interesting times" - having got into my grammar, it turned comprehensive the following year owing to the change in political policy in London so I saw a little of both sides and can promise you that the original, small grammar was a million times better than the school it morphed into over the years.

Our school was in one of the less affluent areas of London and many of us were from single parent/more than the average number of Black and Asian girls/very working class/otherwise difficult or impoverished backgrounds and you could count the middle class children on the fingers of one hand in each year of 60 girls. Nonetheless, many of those 60 girls went on to Uni, which was far harder to achieve and less expected of children like me all those years ago and now very many of us hold professional positions as GPs, solicitors, a couple of vets and so on.

"lets face it people know the options... "

They don't, you know!

'....im quite surprised at the posts here saying people tutor their kids for up to 4 years in advance?'

I know this because I read the anguished threads on mumsnet! Some have said that it isn't possible in a highly competitive grammar school area to do it without preparation. I have to say that the majority are tutored because they are average and selective schools are not for the average. Most DCs are average(even on mumsnet)-that is what it means!

but if they are 'average' the what is the point of pushing to get them into a highly selective grammar?

if they cant pass the 11+, how could they cope with grammar school education...do you tutor them the whole way through?

by 10 years old if some kids were taking an exam for a local school - even the child would probably know about it seeker

well lets hope one bright enough to pas the 11+ should do

cant find free school mean data

There isn't a parent on here valhala who would stand back and say that the highly intelligent, but disadvantaged child deserves the place rather than their average child who has been crammed for the last year! They just thank their lucky stars they could pay! (I am very cynical-I know children who have got places and then need remedial English lessons!!)
I think that 20yrs ago children just took the test-but not now.

They get in and then they struggle NotanOtter-because the parent sees it as the 'best' school-completely missing the point that it is the best school for the above average child.

Sorry-harleyd not otter.

Of course grammar schools are socially (as well as intellectually) selective, by default. There is no doubt about this; the Sutton Trust research (last year or year before) shows this clearly.

They are providing selectivity on the cheap for wily middle class pushy parents (I may be one, though could never afford independent school which I suspect many grammar school parents could)

I am not deluding myself about this; and have much social guilt about it. But if I feel it is best for my kid, I still won't let my ideological views stand in his way. And I am lucky (and not smug) that I can afford to pay for a teeny bit of tutoring to help him get to know what is expected.

FWIW his tutor doesn't really think he needs 'tutoring' just familiarisation: he exceeded the passrate by quite a long way in his first few sessions on all practice papers. So I have no doubt he will cope with the intellectual challenge.

The social challenge, of people driven in in Mercs, going on annual ski-ing holidays and obsessed with rugby and the CCF, I'm less sure about... He will probably end up going to the local comp, which is good for this area and hopefully succeeding in a small but bright group of likeminded kids.

they do struggle i cannot imagine its much fun

yes i agree pm

i was always happy with 11+
its just the situation here now that im getting so frustrated, i was never sressed about it until they changed it

Hi. Am new to MN but feel strongly on this point. Some posters say grammar schools are unfair and don't benefit children from poor backgrounds....this may be the case now the system has largely been dismantled, but before it was the best chance these kids had.

My mother's parents were poor and my father's parents were immigrants who came here literally with nothing after the war. Both my parents went to grammar schools as did I and each generation has managed to achieve more than the one before.

Now in many cases children can only get a "good" education if their parents pay - either directly through fees or indirectly by buying houses in the catchment areas of good schools.

The trouble is many people think equality and fairness are the same....we can have a system where everyone gets an equally bad education but that does not make it right or fair. Perhaps the increase in social inequality and reduction in social mobility in recent decades is related to the destruction of an education system, that while not perfect, enabled children from all social backgrounds to have a chance at a great education. Now it seems to be a massive postcode lottery...unless of course you can pay....

Fair point Piscesmoon. There was one girl in my year who for reasons I never did find out was accepted into my school on the strength of a 1-1-2 result in the 11+ and, not to be spiteful, as she was a great lass with remarkable qualities, but intellectually she struggled to keep up.

In my day there was indeed no tutoring - we sat the exam, we were prepared for it well by our teachers and we just got on with it. There was also no snobbery, smugness, crowing or bitching on the part of the parents whose children passed the 11+ that I recall and certainly I and others like me didn't look down upon or disown our friends who attended comprehensives. I get the feeling that much has changed since I went to secondary school though, from what has been said and insinuated here, which is terribly sad.

I do admit I have nothing but respect for those with bright children who give or pay for them to have extra tuition. I damn well would too if we had grammars here in my county. That said, I wonder about the sense in cramming just above average children in order to get them a pass rate as it could well not work to the children's advantage in future years.

However, it is not just academic success that we look at when deciding where to send our youngsters, there are the behaviour, discipline and moral and social standards to consider too. If a parent feels that these are better in their local grammar I can quite see why they might opt to tutor a child who may not otherwise make the grade.

god im feeling really old now, i dont know what a 1-1-2 is, in my day it was an a, a b or an m (? or something)

The whole system is unfair. I have no right to get so cross about grammar schools-I am very conscious that I have deliberately moved to an area with good comprehensive schools-I have bought my way into the system neume. The only fair way is to have every school a good school, but sadly this isn't the case. I just wish that grammar schools could devise a test that no one could prepare for and no one had any idea what it would be until they opened the paper-but again-not possible.

The problem in my area is that the schools that are not grammars are among the lowest performing in greater london. There is such a gaping divide between the two, and I am panicking now (dd is in yr4).
Of course, if she is not 'grammar material' I do not want her to struggle, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
Because of this, most parents at my dd's school plan to get tutors next year, so of course I don't want her to be at a disadvantage, so I will prob get one too.
I went to a catholic girls school, so it wasn't an issue for me, but dh is so anti religion of any kind it wouldn't be feasible (or ethical) to apply. Friends of mine are getting their children christened now so they will be eligible to apply.

The system was entirely different when I took it-as you say valhala you were just prepared by the school and did it. I actually failed, but I went to the grammar school later on. I remember a poster a few months ago telling me that it was so competitive these days that even a highly intelligent child needed a tutor. When I did it it was certainly a way up for the disadvantaged child-I don't think it is today (or not in the same numbers).

YANBU.

Arghhh! It's all bonkers but of course it's also so important to feel that your child is getting the best possible chance in life.

My DS1 is in Y5 at a Kent primary and we are just beginning to consider what we'll do. Here in Kent it seems to me the 11 plus is very much the preserve of the middle classes - along with all the associated tutoring. The alternative Anglican and Catholic schools in my town are also very good but the high school - just rebranded as an academy - is one of the worst performing schools in the county (and that's not surprising considering its context).

The thing that really stinks is all the hypocracy that the 11plus engenders, and all the wretched tutoring. In my son's circle of friends I know he is the only one not being tutored for one reason or another. I strongly feel that if he can't pass the exams on his own then he shouldn't do the test - albeit with a bit of familiarisation with some practise papers at home - his primary school won't do any practise in class as it's a Catholic feeder school and of course the secondary church schools brand themselves as comprehensive so don't want the children from their feeders doing the 11 plus.

In Kent I think about the top 50% of children go to a grammar school - so that's not exactly the most able in the end anyway and they have their own struggles with children who have been coached through the 11plus but are really not keeping up once they are into the grammar schools.

Hopefully we'll move to a comprehensive county by the time DS is in Y6 so all this will go away...but then it'll be selection by postcode and that's another topic!

depends on the child. I have one who really, really has benefited from a state grammar education (bright but lazy boy). For him, grammar has been absolutely the right type of school. But I also have a child who didn't pass for grammar yet is as bright as many who passed, so for her it is the work of the devil! No one answer in my (limited!) experience

Here's a sample verbal reasoning paper.

www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/features/11plus/

I got 48/50, unfortunately they don't tell you which you got wrong. Found it fairly challenging.

Question 37 appears to be wrong:

Question 37
37. In Mrs Thompson's class three children have a number of gold stars between them. Robert has 8. Simone has half of the total number. Sally has 4 more than Robert.

If this statement is true, only one of the sentences is true. Select the correct one.

A The children have 30 gold stars between them
B Simone has the same number as Robert
C Sally has more than Simone
D Simone has 30 gold stars
E Simone has five times as many gold stars as Sally

Took me a few minutes to work out this one:

Question 45
45. Three of the four words are given in code. These codes are not written in the same order as the words and one code is missing.

CART RICE TALE COST
6459 9781 3261

Find the code for the word STAIR

A 59723
B 69732
C 95327
D 59327
E 69723

It is a bit silly, because it's all VERY coachable. E.g., there are five questions like this:

1. One letter from the first word must be moved to the second word to make two new words. The letters must not be rearranged. Both new words must make sense.

eg. CLIMB LOSE C LIMB CLOSE

TILED ACES

A T
B I
C L
D E
E D

you teach your child that if they encounter such a question they can simply write out the possibilities and cross off the ones that don't work i.e.

ILED - T x
TLED - I x
TIED - L
TILD - E x
TILE - D

and then try and fit the possibilities into the second work - immediately finding LACES.

Obviously a brighter child will work through the technique it quicker BUT they have a huge advantage over the child that has never seen it before.

Similarly, there are a procession of questions like this:

19. Find the letters that will complete the sentence in the best way and select the correct answer eg. DE is FG as ST is to [UV]

AC is BZ
as SN is [?]

and you just have to learn that the first letter of the second pair is a certain number of letters before or after the first letter in the first pair.

I.e.

A -> B is +1
C-> Z is -3

and then apply that to the unknown pair:

S +1 = T
N -3 = K
i.e. SN is TK

I guess the answer to the coaching objections is that all parents can and should coach their children, because education is important, and this is a good argument, but some parents won't be bright enough themselves - it doesn't do much for social mobility for these kids. (Although, again, in a comprehensive system these children are still highly likely to fai.)

clickable link: www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/features/11plus

wot seeker said.

(I went to a grammar school as well).

(someguy, in qu 37, Simone has 20, no? So yes, none of the statements is correct)

Can't believe this exam is still taken [shock). I'm really out of touch . I thought the 11+ had been replaced years ago. My eldest is 28,youngest 20-they never took this exam. I did-about 45 years ago. I passed but refused the place at the local high school as I knew my parents couldn't afford the uniform. I've achieved far more from attending a secondary modern school than most of my former class mates who went onto Grammar school. I really believe that if a child has the ability and wants to learn then they will. We only have to look at some of the most priveledged kids in the land to know thatif they haven't 'got it' then the best schools count for nothing.

I think that it is only fair that children should have a practise with some of the questions because they are very different from the sort of thing that they usually encounter but no more than that. A bright child can easily work out the type of question given by SomeGuy. If they need intensive coaching and everyday practise for at least a year then grammar school isn't the place for them. Once there, they have to keep up with the children who sailed through them with ease. It must be very upsetting to be in a class where you can't keep up.
I should think that you need an IQ of at least 120 to benefit from selective education; if most mumsnet's children had an IQ of 120 then that would be average and you would need higher! There was a very funny thread a while ago started by someone who (shhh) -admitted (horror)they had an average child .
The exam is very good at separating the top end and the bottom end--where it fails is the bulk in the middle. At some point a line is drawn and there is no difference between the child who passes and the child who fails.