Return to 11+ for all ...?

[roisin]

What's this all about then?

Presumably this would be at the beginning of yr6, so yr5 will be spent stressing about that. And presumably they will still have SATs at the end of yr6.

Aaaarrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

Or does anyone think this is a good idea?

well I can see what they want to do (and why) but it seems like a hellava round about way of doing it. So they would take an equal amount of children in each band and take into account those who have an interest in the specialism the school offers? What a pallava! And all this to stop the so called middle classes buying up houses near good secondary schools?

So this isn't replacing the 11+ and, in areas where there are still grammar schools, as here, presumably children who are grammar school material will have to sit the 11+, this new exam and their SATs - all in Y6.

They also state that all schools will have to take an equal number of children from all ability ranges, but no mention is made of what will happen to grammar schools. Their whole premise is that they only take the top 25% and experience has shown that, in areas where they still exist, parents don't want them scrapped.

I read this story this morning and was gobsmacked. I'm a governor at a primary school and am all too aware that testing is getting in the way of education. Now to add another layer on to that and can you imagine the stress of trying to get a result because this could really affect your childs future. They are also proposing that parents select a secondary school on the basis of its specialism e.g. languages, sport, science. So we are going to have to make life choices for children at 11 years old. I hope these are only proposals and won't come to fruition. I'm always keeping the idea of home education on the back burner as things just seem to be getting wilder in education.

I don't think it's a bad idea actually, unless of course it is in addition to all the other tests. I'm in a grammar school area but the only kids "allowed' to sit the 11+ are those expected to pass. Politics here means if you aren't sure you don't take a chance they might fail. If everyone sits the test it enables your new school to "set" you accurately from the start, and allows those borderline kids to show whether or not they are actually grammar school ability.

I can't see how it would prevent "middle-class parents" moving to be in the right catchment though, unless they will do away with the idea of catchment & start "bussing' kids to get a wide ability/social mix?

Great so my kids could go to school five miles away just because they are in an ability group that is already filled up and we wonder why people get so frustrated. Yes high ability children end up in the schools in the same area. Another test in an already other tested age group. Let's not forget also that there are some children not particularly able at 11 who then become very academic later on. Amazing the Government pay for a big research project to be done, ignore it and then come up with this crap idea. What a waste of our money

God oh to be fair to everyone!

On another point, sorry to preach. I did a language degree, my DH a science degree so our kids could be either or have a totally different specialism but are we supposed to decide that for them at 11. I would love it if my parents had decided it for me. God knows what they had have chosen. The whole thing is far to prescriptive. Why are our kids being pushed down a route at such a young age. My nephew and niece are at a school that has decided to become a sports center and my bil is up in arms. He sees it as the easy route because they could not get the academic bit right. That may be right or wrong but ask yourself honestly. You have a choice of three schools, science, languages and sport. We all want the best for our kids. Which one would you pick? Would you be peeved if you got the one you did not want. Now imagine the same scenario with three different schools and no specialisms. You would not necessarily just go on academic performance but on the feel of the school etc. Therefore all this specialism is making the decision far more black and white and in my opinion a lot harder for parents. Sorry rant over.

Quite a lot of the London schools have this system, and it seems to be relatively uncontroversial. It's called a 'banding test', and most of the comprehensive schools use it to maintain a truly comprehensive intake, rather than just reflecting the local housing situation. You can't fail the test, nor do you get told what your child's result was. You can then look at the school's entry for the previous year to get an idea of what the cut-off distances were for each band. So for the new Academy in the depths of Hackney it's noticeable that the cut-off distance for the top band is significantly further than for the bottom band, presumably because it's in an educationally disadvantaged area, so there will be more band 3 kids living near the school than band 1. So in order to get a truly comprehensive mix they have to go further afield to get their top band pupils. If they just took everyone on the basis of distance from the school it would become a secondary modern by default.

Conversely a popular school in an expensive area is likely to have a smaller cutoff distance for high-ability kids, but a greater one for lower-ability, in order to maintain a balanced intake and prevent the middle-classes taking all the places.

It makes sense to me. Because you don't find out the results, there shouldn't be any pressure. It also makes sense to nationalise the tests as round here it's a complicated mix of schools, groups of schools and LEAs each applying their own banding tests. So if you are applying to four or five schools, you may have to sit several tests. Whereas if they could standardise it, children would only have to sit one.

I don't think it's a return to 11+ by the back door.

I've not read the link Roisin - I don't think I can bear to. It's 7 yrs off yet and I'm stressing about the 11+ nightmare already.

Frogs. That may work in a densely popular area such as later but an expample I can think of is in an area such as the suburbs, one example would be Knowle on the outskirts of Birmingham. This is an affluent area and therefore all the kids are affluent. Most will be high ability because the parents are generally high ability professional people who live in the area. There is one secondary school in the village. This system would therefore mean that some people of the children would not get in to the school because there are too many high ability pupils and would therefore need to travel a greater distance to the school. Other children from outside the area would then have their place. Now in a village like this where most people would either walk to school or cycle this would be very damaging. In an area such as London or Birmingham where I live people travelling to a school is not such a big issue but in these villages and small towns it would be awful. In this type of area what are you going to do to make the school more comprehensive. Yes people buy houses in Knowle because the school is very good but these are the same parents who are involved in their kids education. Parents involvement in their children's education has been shown to make a bigger difference to a child's academic performance than anything else. Therefore it is not just a question of affluence.

we don't have that in this part of london (thank goodness)

why should comprehensive schools have a homogenised intake? I thought the whole idea about comprehensive schools was that they didn't select and that they reflected the local community.

I wonder if Scotland will be affected by this? It says in the article that it's a nationwide system but education is a devolved issue.

Anyway, the bit I don't understand is this, maybe someone could explain it. If each school takes in from all nine bands that must mean they will have pupils across the ability spectrum. But how would a child in the lowest band for, says, maths, be able to cope in a maths specialist school when they struggle with the subject?