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,

Madonna the point is really that the 11+ is supposed not to need parental preparation or input to any excessive extent.

im confused by this thread.

its a system that you dont believe in seeker.

you feel its unjust.

yet you said you paticipated despite it being non complusary.

that in itself went against your principles or you could have opted out or sought places at private school also against your principles.

but you entered the grammer pool somewhat reluctantly/
but just dipped toe in water dident go full hog with prep as assumed hes bright he will breeze it. did you look at 11+papers online see what they entail.

But now hes not made the grade you reverted back to principles that it was unfair that odds stacked against.

I dont see why tutoring should be a bad word if its deciding a childs school.

You and your son clearly wanted the grammer and are dissapointed.
I do worry that your negativity may make child feel worse and less postive about new school and feel like he let you down.
Especially harsh goldfish comment.
Exams at such a young age, the pressure/nerves got to him.

you say he do fine at new school, that its ok
but deep down you dont believe that.
you think its wrong place for your son so whats plan b?

"An exam for which parents have the responsibility to prepare their children is going to be socially selective, isn't it? And not particularly effective at differentiating ability. "

Yes! And include in that any GCSE with a coursework component.

It's controlled assessments now. No coursework, no parents.

rabbit - thats true.But we are only talking about getting through 11+ and a place in GS.

You can't take the parent out of the child....

Actually, I think my children will probably benefit from me being a teacher when they do their GCSEs (assuming they permit any interference...). Inevitable. But we're talking here about selecting a child's education at 11 on the basis of an exam where performance can be influenced by preparation, either by parents who are able (and willing) to do that themselves, or by paid for tutors. And saying that on the pass mark, they get one kind of school, one mark below, they get another. How can it be a valid selection process?

Having read through it all to catch up from where I left off this morning, I can honestly say that I can't see any point in the grammar school system. It makes far more sense to have them under the one roof and set for every subject. The late developers are not harmed, the ones who were not tutored in exam technique are not harmed, the ones who are brilliant at Maths but useless at English can find their correct place etc.
I am very glad that I made the sensible decision, years ago, to move out of a grammar school area.
The next thing that needs to be sorted out is an excellent education for all, regardless of where you live. Money is still buying a place at the best comprehensives.
The one fact that comes out is that money is all important to secure a good education, either by paying to go private, paying to pass the exam or paying for a house in the 'correct' catchment area. The disadvantaged children, who should get the very best to compensate, get the worst schools.
The whole education system needs changing - and not just in Kent.

The fact that one mark separates children is the worst part of it, TheFallenMadonna.

I do agree with you, pianomama, to the extent that I think pure intelligence is somewhat overrated. Very few occupations require absolute brilliance, as opposed to reasonable intelligence, highly developed powers of concentration, an undamaged memory, an appropriate education, resilience, a capacity for hard work, self-belief and common sense.

If you believe that, although the system is wrong,given that it exists the children whom it benefits should be those who are innately bright and happen to pass the test and not those coached to pass it, it is neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to allow your bright child to sit the test and not coach him or her for it.

If it were me, I would want mine to sit it and pass it, and to that end I would do practising and helping. But I accept that would make me a hypocrite.

Pianomama - it does also have to be said that your argument about it being easy to help your child pass the 11 plus only stands up if you are one of a minority who prepares you child rigorously for the 11 plus. If all children were prepared in the same way you prepared your child, some of those highly prepared children would still have to fail on the day.

no seeker the test was not 1 day... it's held over 2 days VR + NVR on 1 day, Maths and English on another.
In our primary it was actually Mon- Wed..Mon for the practice tests then Tues-wed for the real thing.
The test is competitive, hence movement on the cut off.
And I'm sorry, but your son did not look like grammar school material to 2 independent appeal panels.
Look, I totally understand how you feel.
I, too am a little worried about how ds2 will fare at his comp... but it's fear of the unknown, I know the gs.
And also it's my prejudices...ds2 has been judged and found wanting, as has your son... but, really, who cares what others think? I really don't care what other boys are doing and what school they're at..
Ds2 will be totally fine, because he's going to a good school and he has me to make sure he's going to reach his potential.
Your son will be exactly the same. Move on and be positive about this new school.

One mark frequently makes the difference though exotic. A mark below the grade boundary for GCSE, AS or A2, a mark here or there for Final exams, a knife edge decision at interview for that much prized job.

That's life. You either score the goal or you don't.

It may well do Yellowtip - but utterly ridiculous to decide future education on it at the age of 10 or 11 yrs.

You can also redo the rest - you may fail again but you can at least try again.

Many pupils stay on at school for an extra year to get better results.

It's not very easy to redo final degree exams though, is it?

The fact that something as little as one mark making the difference is one thing in favour of the high schools. There will be lots of children just under the cutoff, and the high schools will cater for them.

I don't know if it is so ridiculous. I always find the knee jerk reaction on MN of 'pay for a re-mark' where a GCSE/AS/A2 is on the boundary line not quite playing the game.

I think that by final degree time they have had a lifetime of exams, they know how to study and they have the technique. At 10 or 11 they don't.

Rather then compare it to different types of exams, surely we should be looking at what the 11+ is designed to do? Is it a valid way of deciding what type of school a child should attend? Clearly, preparation does influence performance, and therefore factors other than the ability of the child are involved. There are not two discrete groups of children, "able" and "less able", so we have a situation where a difference one mark can place children, at a stage in their education where the involvment of interested adults can make a huge difference to test performance, into different schools.

If seeker's son had an off day, or deliberately performed below par, or was affected by stress, or any of the other suggestions made, does that make his selection into the High School rather than the grammar more valid?

If someone one mark below the cut off was inadequately prepared, and someone on the cut off was intensively tutored, does it make their selections valid?

I feel a bit of an observer to all this, and I don't live in a selective area, have never taught in one, and was sent to a differently selective school in which I did very well, but I find selection by 11+ to be deeply flawed, and I haven't seen an argument to convince me otherwise.

Not so sure exotic. Some get increasingly stressed out by exams, ever more conscious of parental expectation or peer pressure and of what hangs on the outcome of the exam. At least at aged 10 it can be approached more as a game. I don't find it too pernicious myself.

yellowtip I'm not sure you quite get the idea of the parental appeal. Parents prepare dossiers about their children - literally, in presentation booklets. My friend was told that high SATs scores meant nothing, but was asked ....'and what else can your child offer'. The non-savvy parent would not be able to win an appeal.

(Sorry - responding to a post from pages ago. Have been waiting in A&E for several hours in the interim!)

I have a very clear idea of the appeal process flexy.

A&E doesn't sound too good.