Those of you in favour of grammar schools, come and tell me what to say to my Ds...

[seeker]

He woke up crying in the night because the reality had just hit him that he won't be going to school with his close friends in September because he failed the 11+ in September. "I can't be very bright, can I mum, or I would have passed" " no, it was just one of those things-you're going to a good school, you'll be fine" "I know- but if i was clever I'd be going to school with X and Y" "You are clever- look at your SATs-you'll be in the top set at the high school because of those" " it's not SATS that are important, though, it's the 11+"

Do you want to have more kids feeling like that? Then campaign for more grammar schools,

"You're not answering my question seeker.

Did you choose to enter your son for the 11 plus exam or were you forced to?"

I must have missed your question.

Taking the test is obviously not compulsory. Taking part in a selective education system is, if you want a state education.

Is there no way you could raise school fees - you and his father each pay £5k a year?

We don't believe in private education.

Seeker

Was your son coached for the 11+?

i am guessing most parents where there is an 11+ would enter their child for the test, even if they dont agree with it as you may as well give them the opportunity.

However you looked at it, the majority were having the cards stacked up against them already at the age of 10 or 11 and would have a long, hard fight to claw their way back from a system which concentrated on the 25% to the obvious detriment of the rest (except, of course, those who could pay to avoid going where an exam dictated they ought to be).

It was even worse in my day rabbitstew - both junior schools that I attended streamed from the age of seven. Movement between streams was usually downwards, almost never upwards. Only those in the top stream had a good chance of passing, so you were effectively marked down as an 11+ failure at 7.

However, there were pecking orders between the Secondary Moderns - some were definitely better than others. Some were diabolical, and I can't imagine that anyone mourned their passing.

Greythorne, no he wasn't.

I went through the grammar school system. It worked for me but I would be hugely reluctant to subject my dds to it. They are all bright. I suspect all would pass fine. I still don't think it would be right for them. Op you have my sympathy.

I am really sorry to hear about him being so upset.

If you, the parent, genuinely believe the other school is a good option then it should not be upsetting him for long though, iyswim.

Maybe he feels he has let you down, which may be very hard for him, so telling him it genuinely does not matter to you should help.

My less sympathetic side wonders why you oppose a system that you previously approved off. It sounds like you agree with selective education (ie grammars) UNLESS your child does not get in.

So you only approve of selective education if your child gets in. If he doesn't, then nobody else should? there is a kink in your logic somewhere. If you really did not approve of it on principle, you would not have him sit the exam, right?

You know what you should be telling him then seeker? That you let him down. You know full well competition for places in Kent is fierce. Every grammar is oversubscribed and lots of parents of borderline kids will tutor. Why in earth didn't you prepare him?

Seeker very clearly, and very traceably on MN, never approved of this system.

Jesus but some people are nasty.

And obtuse.

I think that people need to remember that seeker is a human being with feelings.

It is awful to see our children get hurt and feel disappointment. Seeker has postered on mumsnet for year and have never been in favour of grammars.

I'm not trying to be nasty... But as seeker has being going round and round in circles with this since March, it's probably best to be blunt.
Seeker might not like the system, but she knew it,after all she already has a dd at grammar.
She chose not to play the system with her ds and he lost out.
So who is at fault really? The system or seeker?

I don't know anyone at all of my age, growing up in Kent, who opted out of taking the 11 plus. I don't think people realised you could opt out without getting into trouble for not turning up to school that day. Even the guaranteed fails all turned up to take the exam. It wasn't like the 11 plus in areas where you actually have to state your intention to take it - it was assumed you would be taking it and it took place in every primary school for every child, like SATs do these days (for the moment, at least). So opting out would feel a bit like refusing to take the SATs tests - something considered a bit odd. I notice in recent years that local Kent papers have started publishing statistics indicating that some children do opt out of taking the 11 plus exam altogether, but it is a very small proportion of children not taking it in the part of Kent I grew up in, which has no super selectives, even now (generally none of the children opt out in the more well heeled primaries) so you would feel like a bit of a social pariah to make that sort of political statement. You would also, as seeker has pointed out, not be opting out of a selective system by doing it, you would just be ensuring your child went to a school that did not have such a comprehensive range of intellects and social backgrounds as comprehensive schools in otherwise comparable parts of the country.

How can a system that you have to 'play' be without fault?

... and opting into a school which at least had the honesty not to call itself a comprehensive - as in seeker's part of the world, the non-grammars where I grew up were for a long time still called secondary moderns and then became high schools and are still named as such, if they aren't now academies (which many are, given the higher proportion of these schools which were deemed to be failing).

I don't think play up! play up! and play the game! means what it used to, CecilyP.... It is now considered virtuous to play the system.

Although, of course, sport and war have always been two arenas where the line between clever tactics and outrageous cheating has always been very, very thin...

Of course it has faults...
But seeker was prepared to put her ds in for the test and despite what is said, it's not obligatory... My ds didn't take it.
So if you are going to put them in for it, probably best to prepare otherwise they'll be facing failure as she has sadly found out.

A very simple answer Ingles - the system.

Right or wrong, tutoring can really help. Some children are not great at exams, and will panic. It doesn't mean they are not able, just that they need extra help with exam prep. I thought you were appealing, Seeker??

It's like the arguments over tax avoidance - there are some who claim, with utterly straight faces, that morality doesn't come into it. Something is either legal or it isn't - even if you need to pay a QC huge amounts of money to come up with an argument that he might just be able to swing on a good day in front of the right judge, in the unlikely event it ever gets that far....

seeker

You chose to 'play the game' by getting your son to sit the 11+, even though you don't approve of the system.

Why did you not 'play the game' by getting coaching on 11+ technique?

I can understand that in principle you might be against coaching, but in principle you are against grammars creaming off the top exam performers.

You could have had your son not sit the 11+ and you could have circumvented the whole pass / fail scenario you describe, as your son would just have been going to the school the very great majority of kids in your area attend.

Your son is apparently bright but wasn't prepped for the specific skills required for 11+ success.

I find that strange.

But are you in Kent, Ingles2?