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

[LynetteScavo]

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

Ladymuck

I do have internet access at home (hence me being on MN in the evenings!); I just print out at work because I don't have a printer at home, and I find doing work online not good for primary school children. I do think having a computer at home is an advantage for children (particularly at secondary school), but I personally didn't find it useful to put my child on one for primary school level stuff.

I am not saying the situation is fair. I am saying it is not just about money. There is a big difference between unfairness based solely on the ability to pay £25 a week for 4 years (as someone was saying 4 years of tutoring earlier) as opposed to being based on someone having a parent who can't or won't do academic work with their child.

There have been lots of 11 plus debates on MN, and the one thing that would convince me that it was more unfair than the rest of the education system is statistical evidence that 11 plus results are more linked to socio-economic background than setting, GCSE, A level, or KS2 results.

MillyR - i can see where you're going with that last bit - and I'm thinking along the same lines. Had a long post but decided it was a bit off subject, and involved. So just this instead.

Yes, agree, glad we moved away from Buckinghamshire about 9 years ago. I am glad my dc don't have to do it.

Used to work in the Education Dept in Bucks, parents were very stressed out and upset if their children didn't make it into the grammar school and didn't get what they saw as a more pretigious education.

DS1 has been tutored for his raft of entrance exams, not because he isn't bright enough but because he has to be familiar with the sort of questions they will ask.

I've paid for a tutor because I do not have the patience to do it myself. If I had done it myself, that would still be tutoring.

"Here, when you leave Primary schoolat ten, the teacher recommend whether you go to Grammar school or not. "

Where's that, diddl?

When I did the 11+, we were tutored for it in school. Therefore you could claim children from my state primary went into grammar without being tutored which was not actually the case.

Ds1's teacher told the class parents that she had all of her children tutored by someone else just because it reduced arguments at home!

In Kent, the LEA has attempted to level the playing field by forbidding schools to do more than 2 practice papers by way of preparation. That means that children whose parents understand the system and know how to access past papers are automatically at an advantage compared to the sort of children the system was intended to help in the first place. it's crazy.

I´m in Germany.
There are three levels of schools after primary.

Whichever school you go to you do the "leaving exam" for that school, which then more or less determines what type of job you do afterwards.

There are also comprehensives which offer all three levels.

My intention was not to argue that children who go to a tutor are in any way more or less prepared than children who get help at home. I couldn't argue either way on that because I have no experience of tutors and don't know what they do with the children. I have no issue with people getting a tutor for the eleven plus, anymore than I would have an issue with someone getting a tutor for A level maths.

I am arguing against the idea that it all comes down to money, and that you if you do not pay £25 a week to a tutor, then your child has no chance in the eleven plus.

'
I am arguing against the idea that it all comes down to money, and that you if you do not pay £25 a week to a tutor, then your child has no chance in the eleven plus." You don't have no chance, of course. But you do have a much smaller chance. If children as clever as you (or even less clever) are tutored then they are bound to do better than you if you are going in with only the minimum preparation the schools are allowed to do.

There is a small private primary school near us that practically guarantees 11+ success. I think they get 99%ish. Parents happily pay because it's cheaper than paying private fees up to 18!

I don't think that anyone has said that you have to pay £25 per week. Not in the sense that it is the only way to get in. But I suspect that of those who tutor their own children, the vast majority are from homes where they could afford to pay the £25 per week if they had wanted/"needed" to.

So effectively your point is - almost every child will need to be helped outside of their sate school provision in order to pass the 11+. But many middle class or educated parents will be able to do the prep themselves if they want to.

I'm with Seeker, it's really vile, we are only up the road and took it when we were 11 too. The day the results came through the class was divided like the red sea. Those who passed felt guilty and got jeered by those who didn;t, who were subjected to a feeling of failure heavier than you might care to imagine.

The 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of some on here is staggering.

The test is wrong in much the same way that public schooling is wrong

if you're a winner then great, if you're not you are stuffed. Things ought to be shared out more equally.

I speak as someone who passed it in the top 2% of whatever shite competitive bollocks rant rant rant....I don't want my kids to do it. Hoping to home ed before ds1 gets there.

I live in an 11+ area.because it is a small catchment area ,the grammar school effectively creams off not only the ablest children from the catchment area ,but also from the comprehensives i surrounding catchments.So in other words create one good school (the grammar) and wreck four more ( the 'secondary modern' and 3 neighbouring comps)

Ladymuck, it depends on what you mean by 'educated.' Most people who are not middle class are still 'educated' enough to help a child at KS2 level, if they choose to do so.

I certainly couldn't pay £25 a week, which is what people locally pay for tuition.

My point is that while many people may have a justifiable argument that grammar schools should not exist, that is a different argument to saying the actual exam is unfair because of parental help.

For the parental help argument to be justifiable there has to be evidence that the correlation between 11 plus performance and socio-economic background is greater than the correlation between socio-economic background and performance in other school exams in state schools in non-grammar regions.

If the link is similar in both sets of exams, then grammar schools are selecting the right children withing the constraints of the current GCSE/A level system.. If the grammars are taking a higher proportion of advantaged children than would be expected from national GCSE performance, then there is a problem with the eleven plus. If the grammar schools don't take more, than the problem is with the whole education system.

"Most people who are not middle class are still 'educated' enough to help a child at KS2 level, if they choose to do so. "

Really? On what basis do you say that? Where is the proof that the millions of people who have left school without a single qualification would be able to tutor their children through 11+? That parents who do not have any books in their house and do not read for pleasure suddenly have no problem in helping their children in verbal reasoning and comprehension?

My parents couldn't tell you what "non-verbal reasoning" is.

"For the parental help argument to be justifiable there has to be evidence that the correlation between 11 plus performance and socio-economic background is greater than the correlation between socio-economic background and performance in other school exams in state schools in non-grammar regions."

Are you talking about KS2 SATS here? Because of course if you are looking at GCSE etc then you have to factor in the advantage of having a selective school in the first place. So I guess the broad stat that would help you would be % of children on free school meals who get L5 at KS2 versus the % on FSM who get into grammmar schools?

But on the other hand this article from earlier this year seems to suggest that many of the private school pupils who end up at grammar schools have lower SATS results than their state educated peers. Presumably they will have pipped somebody else to the place?

Anyway gone well off topic. Have every sympathy to the OP who is probably in the final throes of trying to prepare their dc for 11+. The pressure of just one day seems v crazy. Not looking forward to it!

Ladymuck, I was saying that on the basis that most people who are not middle class do not leave school with no qualifications, never read for pleasure, own no books, and can't work out how to a VR paper. If you genuinely believe that people who are not middle class (i.e. the majority of the population) are that uneducated, then I suggest you read something like 'The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes'. Most of my family are not middle class and I find your generalisations offensive.

Most of the people where I work had never seen a VR paper (before I printed them off) and did not know what it was, because most people under 40, regardless of class, have never had to do one.

I did point out, in the example that you quoted, that you would have to compare 11 plus performance with exam performance of state school children in non-grammar areas, so the problem of pre-existing selection influencing performance would be removed.

seeker is right about kent. The odds are heavily stacked against you even if you are the brightest child in your class but live in relative poverty. All the middle class mummies and the private school children are being tutored and coached until their poor little fingers go raw. It dies not reallymatter whetherthey are bright enough or not

and yes, it does make me mad dbecause the grammar system was/is suppossed to be FAIR and to give bright children an oppourtunity, if the need it. As i said, we are lucky that we have a good High school so....

Interesting research on Boffin Syndrome by Becky Francis reported here last week on Thinking Allowed (Laurie Taylor's R4 prog)

As someone who went to one of the grammar schools in Bexley Borough, we did have a few pupils there from "rough" backgrounds. Quite a few from Erith who generally did quite well - and a couple of lads from Thamesmead who both descended in to truancy by 3rd year. I always wondered what happened to those boys, they'd come in wearing shoes falling apart (in the late 80s) - I don't know if the truancy was caused by not having the bus fare, problems at home or simply a general dislike for school itself - the two boys in question never quite "integrated" with the other boys in their classes.

I was saying that an IQ of 120 would be a minimum, skihorse. I expect that where it is highly competitive it is much higher which is why it seems very unfair to get your average child there who will struggle. I have a friend who passed the 11+ ,but she was in the bottom stream at grammar school and made to seem thick!
In the city that I moved from the state schools did no preparation for the exam but a small private school did little else. On the whole the pupils from the private school managed year 7 and then fell behind. They didn't really have the ability but the parents had used the school (not a good one IMO)to get (buy) the place.

'If you genuinely believe that people who are not middle class (i.e. the majority of the population) are that uneducated, then I suggest you read something like 'The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes'. Most of my family are not middle class and I find your generalisations offensive.

I think that anyone can help their child. My DH not only passed the 11+, but he got a full scholarship to an independent school. His parents are working class and the least pushy people imaginable. They didn't sit him down to practise papers and they certainly didn't pay a tutor. They did what MillyR did (which I wouldn't call tutoring), they played games like chess, took him to the library,were widely read and talked to him about all sorts of subjects-just normal life.
I am pleased that MillyR knows that it is possible to get a place without cramming-I was shocked earlier in the year when someone said that you couldn't get a place without.

It seemed to work much better in the 'old days' when parents didn't get so involved.

I can see why people get so stressed, if the rest of the schools are dire you must want your DC at the grammar school, even if they haven't the ability.

Pisces My apologies - 100 lines "I must not skim-read what others have written." Now that's proper grammar school punishment for you! Btw, I totally agree with your partner's parents - it was just the way our householed was - we, as children, were versed in a variety of subjects and encouraged to go to the library (on our own ) to read and discover.

I think it is much nicer for the DCs skihorse. Playing chess or doing sudoku puzzles etc is much better for family relationships than being forced through past papers.

It's awful, my DD done it last year, came home with 31 papers each consisting of 100 questions, it took all summer to get through them, it made her unhappy, and it made me nearly throw spuds at her, as she done the papers at the kitchen table, awful, awful, awful, then comes the nerves, you poor DC shitting it at that age, ban it ban it ban it.

Rant over

The summer should be a holiday bubblegum! Childhood is short-by the time the poor things have finished being crammed it is over!
I think that you are right about the library and discovering books for yourself, skihorse. I have just commented on another thread where the mother is up in arms because her 5 yr old has come home with a book she doesn't think suitable from the school library. Instead of using it for the basis of discussion she has taken it off him and he is in tears and can't understand why he did the wrong thing!