I think the 11 plus is unfair

[LargeGlassofRed]

Dd1 failed her 11 plus today, she did'nt have tutoring just a practice paper from wh smiths.

It seams all of her close friends have passed, she' ok she does like the local comp, but she's dreading Monday at school

I seamed to be in the very small minority who hasn't paid for private tuition,

Just ranting really and feeling sad for her, I'm sure it will all blow over by next week.

No system is ever completely fair or able to serve all children optimally. But the state education system should be doing all it can to help those who don't have rich/clever/pushy parents.

We were able to help our own child (she's bright and an 'academic' school is just what she needs, but being out of catchment she had to do exceptionally well). But I can't help other peoples children. And it bothers me that the state primaries used to help all kids but don't now.

Grammar system intrinsically divisive, unfair and wrong. Sorry your daughter is upset.

Not sure about the 'brightest children always pass' - DD didn't get in to the girls' grammar school in the neighbouring town, but at GCSE outperformed her friend who had come out top in the exam and many others at the grammar, and then went on to get 5 A grades at A level. Another mumsnetter has a similar story - her DD is now at Cambridge.

So not getting in to the grammar is not the end of the world & doesn't necessarily mean you're not as bright as those who do.

it isn't fair. My Uncle failed his 11+. My dad pssed. My Dad went on to university, his brother didn't even do well at tech college. The difference in capability between them isn't that wide - but it was made a gulf in opportunity by a single test taken age 11.

Not fair.

I also think that the 11+ as a measure of intelligence is pretty meaningless. It is simply a snapshot in time. My brother passed the 11+, just. He blossomed at grammar school and went on to be more academically able than me, albeit he was a late starter.

The point about the bus pass is that there are secondary schools locally the children could walk to but the LEA will provide any child that passes the 11+ with a free bus pass if they qualify for free school meals so they have the opportunity to have a grammar school education if they pass. It's thought to be giving them an opportunity to do their best in a good school environment, you take away the grammar school and they will stay and be educated in the area they live with all that goes with it.

not the case here mama... as I said, rural, bused to whatever school you go, not dependant on 11+ at all..

Completely different scenario then.
Most children could walk to 2 comps locally but the grammars are in the footballers houses area's so nobody under 60 lives in what you'd call catchment, everyone is driven or bused into the grammar schools.
If you could afford to live locally then you'd go private anyway.

My DD passed the 11+.

As she was an only child; I was the last to know about the tutoring; and by that time it was too late; all the tutors had gone. I felt that I had failed Her.

But she passed and every single one of her friends (with tutors) failed.

The whole institution is not unfair Marsha. Being highly academic is not luck; it's apptitude and ability.

My DD has a better education because she's earned it.

Without tutors, without practice papers; just on Her own merit. It wasn't luck. It was ability.

am repeating myself here but that's fine for your DD Penelope. But believe me she will be at school with children who aren't as bright as her naturally, who have only got in because they were tutored - and others who are brighter than those children won't have got in because they weren't able to afford tutoring/have parents who could help them.

Am with Grimma "No system is ever completely fair or able to serve all children optimally. But the state education system should be doing all it can to help those who don't have rich/clever/pushy parents. "

PenelopeTitsDropped - I take it you won't let her revise for her GCSE's or A'Levels either then to prove your point about it all being her own ability ?
She was lucky I've seen bright children who should be in grammar schools parents take that risk on purpose and they've regretted it.

Selective schools are inevitable unfair to some pupils.

But lumping everyone together can be unfair too. Some comps manage to do a pretty good job but a lot don't, and there's nothing fair about mediocrity all round. Mixed ability classes often don't serve the needs of the highest or the lower aptitudes.

It is luck because you merely inherit intelligence from your parents or don't.

Four children in our family. Two highly academic, two not. Each child worked hard. Thank goodness my parents could ensure we all went to an excellent school. Not just the two that were top of the class.

And I did work hard and do very well. I was highly academic. But no more deserving of an excellent education than my sisters.

Same if my children are not equally academic.

But Penelope,ability is luck,at least in part.She didn't earn it - she was lucky enough to have been born with a set of abilities that is enabling her,where you live,to have a privileged education.

That is great for her,but not so good for the children who are failing the 11+.
(Not saying she hasn't worked as well,mind)

All children should be stretched to the best of their ability. Not just the bright ones.

And I do believe in streaming.

Cory - I wish I didn't live in a grammar Sch area either

Listen to yourself, you can always move if you don't want the best schools on your doorstep, would that make you feel better ?

Marshabrady - nope don't believe that at all. Very intelligent patents can produce less intelligent children and vice versa

Yes,I don't know any non-selective schools here which don't stream,and least for some subjects and DD's school streamed for everything,with lots of movement up or down as needed.

Mama - was that to me?

Who was that to,mamatomany?

Yes that is what I am saying bigchris. Of course.

My father was/is very brainy. Some of the children inherited it, some not so much. But thank god our level of schooling wasn't affected by it.

....you can always move if you don't want the best schools on your doorstep, would that make you feel better ?.....

Generally areas with gs are over-burdened with sink schools. Look at Kent and Bucks secondary school results. There are the grammars, coasting along with their narrow curricula and bright children; the good secondaries offering a wider curriculum, doing relatively well in the more affluent catchment areas; and then there are the others......

Also, being educated at a grammar doesn't, or shouldn't, mean you're getting a 'better' education.

It should mean you're getting one suited to your needs.

If, like my best friend at school, you struggle for 7 years, being constantly told you're a bit feeble, really, & then fail all your O-Levels because the school doesn't do CSEs, then it's a really, really crap education.

Ultimately, I enjoyed my grammar education & I do feel that I'd've done less well elsewhere, simply because I'm one of nature's slackers & could have coasted at a less academic school.

I now teach at a (successful) comp - no grammars in our LA - & can honestly say that bright, motivated children with supportive parents do very, very well.

It's the bright ones who don't have clued-up, supportive parents who'd benefit most from the 'escape hatch' of a grammar - & of course they're the least likely to get anywhere near one, in a culture of middle class tutoring.

It's a shame. I'd like to defend grammar schools, but threads like this increasingly bring home to me that my experience in the '80s is terribly far removed from the current reality.

& tbh, getting a place & then struggling was & is a poor outcome...

I went to a crap grammar in the 70s. (Mind you, lots of schools were crap then.)