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.

What a miserable way to spend your last years at primary/prep, though!

I suppose people think it's a sacrifice worth making, but even so.

The maths and english tests, if your kid is able, are okay. You might need to brush up on arithmetic/geometry and so on, but most parents would be able to help tehir kids if they buy the test papers and practice.

The verbal/non verbal reasoning, good lord it's like a whole other language. If you haven't practised/been tutored for a while, I don't see how you are expected to pass these tests?

My daughter was tutored, she passed, it was a bloody struggle to pay for tutoring but she LOVES her girl's grammar school.

Of course it's unfair though, society is unfair.

I thought the system was unfair when I passed the 11+ myself.I got from it a good education that suited me very well,but I still thought it was unfair.
Life is unfair - but I do have problems with a government funded education system designed along those lines.
As the parent of a DC who won't do the 11+ I would be a bit cross if a significant amount of time in Yr 5/6 was given over to coaching for the 11+,when the time available to help children who are struggling seems limited.

discobeaver that's really interesting. We had the completely opposite experience. VR and NVR, no problem, v. straightforward, but maths requiring fretting, and downloading of syllabus for yr 6 maths, etc, just because the primary was ... interesting.

Prompted by this thread, I just gave dd one of ds' old papers out of curiosity. Same as ds; straightforward. But again, she's just left the primary-of-despair and so I know that she doesn't have a great deal of maths and has not yet encountered the world of the full sentence, containing subject, verb, object, full stops, and capitals (she's 7).

Fortunately, we're not likely to do the 11+ thing with dd, so no need for stepping in to do remedial maths and literacy.

So I just suppose it depends a bit.

I don't think my observation says v. much about whether 11+ is fair or not, but just thought I'd add in a personal experience.

.Thing is, Pogles, coaching for the 11+ ijn primaries shoud be just to make sure the children have adequate literacy and maths skills, which many don't.

I can see not teaching the exam specific subjects (VR and NVR) but things like multiplication, geometry, essay structure, comprehension...children should be able to do all these things.

My daughters tutor was fairly horrified at the state of her handwriting, for example.
I know it is up to the parents to some degree, but I do think plenty of schools have very low expectations of children, which in itself is unfair.

Yes,I do agree with that,discobeaver.From my experience verbal and non-verbal reasoning just need familiarity with the papers,and they do do one or two at my DCs school (ego boosting for DS as he is ace at non verbal reasoning).I'm ok with that.Lots of time devoted to it,especially if this involved segregrating the takers from the not takers,not so much...

Essay structure? I'd have put that as a secondary school skill myself.

I am nodding like a nodding dog along with Seeker's view.

I think beginning, middle, end is primary, Pogleswoo. It definitely seems to crop up in the National Curriculum. They do things about mixing up the temporal order, too.

But i do think 11+ exams with a literacy/maths component are less "fair" than VR/NVR and its variants. I told ds that the literacy test was a test of "middle classness", and to whack in as many big words, fancy punctuation things, clauses, and pontifications as possible.

I do wish their primary had been a bit more ambitious. It was the experience of the primary that led us to take the 11+ route. For some bizarre reason, it had an "outstanding" grade from Ofsted. As you can probably guess from my posts, this surprised me a bit, and led me to treat the local "good" comprehensive with suspicion. Since then, the primary has been given a "satisfactory", and I've come to learn a bit more about the local comprehensive, which really is good. So, even though ds is at a grammar (and it's a great school but not local,) I'm a lsightly bitter woman.

Wish there really was equality within the state sector. There isn't at primary level. And not all comprehensives are equal, either. They're not even equal within schools. I know that the experience of a school between being in the top streams and the bottom of even a good comprehensive can be radically different, and almost like being at different schools.

It is unfair and more so than it used to be. If you ask the head of a grammar the percentage of children that came from a private prep it gives you an indication of just how unfair it all is. We call them grammar crammars here. Also, check out the number of pupils on free school meals. The brightest child I have ever met failed the 11 plus last year, despite being highly gifted. He comes from a low income family and had never seen a VR paper before. Of course its unfair.

Skippy - I think if you checked out the stats for those in the higher streams in comprehensives, you'd find something v. similar. And more so in "good" comprehensives. I think if you look on the Sutton Trust website, they have links to research that makes the case for both the above claims.

The sad, sad thing is that we're not yet at a stage where schools are completely hermetic in the education they provide, ie. where home background has no impact. It would be lovely if that were so, but it's not. And, like Cassandra, I predict that we have seen the apex of improvements in that, and the next few years are going to witness a substantial decline.

I, personally, think that the move to academies, and the decline of the pot of money for services targeted at children with economic and SENs, is not going to be off-set by the pupil-premium, and that will mean those disparities are going to accentuate. But obviously, that's a bit off-topic.

I'm not sure what the 11+ is like now; my daughter never took it.
When I was at primary school in the 1960s it was deeply unfair. I didn't know until a few years ago, from a radio programme, that it was geared so that 50% of boys and 50% of girls could pass. That meant a proportion of girls failed, when less successful boys passed - this because at age eleven, girls are doing better than boys. So if it had been based truly upon 'fairness', the proportion of passes would have been maybe 55% girls, 45% boys.
It was a pernicious system I think. I am one of three siblings. The eldest passed the 11-plus. The two younger ones failed. All three of us underwent higher education and have degrees, but I (one of the failures) still think badly of myself for that enormous failure at age 11. I know it's silly, but that is what that system does to kids. :(

"Skippy - I think if you checked out the stats for those in the higher streams in comprehensives, you'd find something v. similar. And more so in "good" comprehensives. I think if you look on the Sutton Trust website, they have links to research that makes the case for both the above claims."

Absolutely, and this is also unfair. It doesn't make grammar schools any fairer.

The fair thing would be to abolish grammars and private schools and adopt a system of busing to get a proper social and ability mix. I would support that and my children have attended both grammar and private schools. Sadly, I don't think it will ever happen.

Sounds like a good way of reducing standards all round.

Do you think so, surely an even spread would raise them.

abr1de, agree with you. I don't see that it's such a problem to fit a few VR and NVR bits into lessons at primary and will help all children, not just those who want to go to the local grammar. Also, think it's diabolical that primaries don't seem to do much (or any?) geometry or algebra; or if they do, it's so simple you don't notice it.

State primaries really don't seem to have any ambition for their pupils other than to get through to the end of the day, each day. (I'm sure most teachers want more than that, of course, but my experience is that the school tends to get in the way iyswim.)

Good lord, Jux, do you really think so about primaries? My daughters come home from their state primary fizzing with how much they've learned - and frankly are learning a hell of a lot more than I did at their age in the early 70s. They are enthused and enthusiastic across a range of subjects. I'm quite envious of them, frankly.

My dd did geometry and algebra from year five. I think most schools do.

I agree motherinferior. I was educated in the 70's/80's, and it was in the days of child centred learning. I could not wait to get to out of primary school into a very traditional (comprehensive, but streamed) secondary school.

Sadly, dd had her natural love of learning knocked right out of her very quickly, in her first primary. She wasn't supposed to read, write, count or anything, and when they finally started learning the alphabet and how to write it, she did it wrong because she wasn't using cursive. She gave up.

We moved and sent her to what seemed the better of two primaries here, where she did get a very very good teacher who stayed with her class for 2 years. Once that teacher left, it was clear that she had been the only good thing about the school (I am not alone in thinking this - most of the parents felt the same). We moved her to the other primary, which actually was better, but still didn't do anything like as much (for instance) maths as any child would need to have a fair wack at the 11+.

Jux my childrens state primary certainly covered algebra and latin too for that matter. There were also lots of cultural trips, chess clubs, orchestra and a wide range of sports. The school usually has about 50% pass rate at 11plus despite having 35 kids in a class. All state primaries are not as bad as you paint. I just want the good ones to be not just the sole preserve of the middle class.

I think there are lots of very good state primaries. Both mine went to one until they were ten. what annoys me is that our local comprehensive, fed by eight or nine very good primaries, doesn't produce better academic results. That's why we don't go there.

Someone mentioned above about how the unfairness is that it's one coachable test, on one day. They'd love the system we have where I live in Switzerland: kids from ages 10-12 follow a 2-year program of constant assessment, in class and in tests, across all subjects.

At 12, based on their marks AND also their aptitude, self-motivation, etc, they are allocated a place in one of 3 streams (think grammar, average comp and sec mod for an idea of curriculas followed in each. The kids in the sec mod stream are actually very well supported, with much smaller class sizes and lots of teacher attention).

That all seems quite fair to me. And to allow for late developers, there are options to upgrade stream at ages 13 and 15 if marks have improved, by redoing an extra year.

Seems the best option if there must be selection. Although personally my preference is for a proper comp, with absolutely no choice parental choice so that it also really becomes the focus of the community, and all the pushy middle-classers like me pour their energies into its ongoing improvement.

Kodokan I agree, if we must have grammars, continuous assessment is the fairest means of selection.