Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Changes to 11-plus to stop middle-class parents 'buying' access to grammars by hiring tutors

999 replies

breadandbutterfly · 01/12/2012 21:48

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241411/Changes-11-plus-stop-parents-buying-access-selective-schools-hiring-tutors-children.html

Similar article in the Times apparently but paywall.

OP posts:
exoticfruits · 03/12/2012 19:51

Of course they need streaming-it is a disaster if they don't. A ggod school doesn't treat all DCs the same-they meet their needs. DS2 wasn't in a top stream for anything-he is dyslexic, not academic and why should he put up with disruption? He didn't. And why would he be segregated from his brothers and his friends? All his best friends are academic types. He left at 16yrs and got a very good apprenticeship- his girlfriend is at a RG university-he isn't stupid-just not academically inclined.He wanted to learn-he was always well behaved.

LaVolcan · 03/12/2012 19:55

Behaviour in grammar schools is massively better than in the bottom streams in a comp, sorry it is.

And so it damn well should be - these children have been told they are the elite - the least they should be able to do is know how to behave.

But, in an area where there are no grammar schools you will equally find that the behaviour of the top sets with motivated students from families with a tradition of valuing education, is just as good.

LaVolcan · 03/12/2012 19:56

And actually, if it was a true comprehensive there wouldn't be ANY streaming.

Why not?

exoticfruits · 03/12/2012 19:59

The 11+ is ridiculous! My brother failed at 11+ passed at 12+ and was in the express, higher flyers stream by 13yrs-excelling in Latin and Greek. Countless people failed and were thrown on a scrap heap at 11 yrs old. (and don't tell me they were not on a scrap heap-I was one of them and that is what it felt like!) I then had to do it the hard way and wait until the 6th form to get into the grammar school and onto university.
I get so annoyed. No one ever says 'bring back the secondary modern' -they gloss over the fact that the majority of the population get a second rate education because as long as their DC has the grammar school place they couldn't care less about the rest-or the sort of silly situation that I know where identical twins (same level of intelligence) can have one at a grammar and one at a secondary modern!

exoticfruits · 03/12/2012 20:01

And actually, if it was a true comprehensive there wouldn't be ANY streaming.

That is the stupidest statement I have ever heard! Even in the secondary modern we were streamed-at the top were those who should have passed the exam and at the bottom were those who couldn't read! Perhaps if people understood the comprehensive system they would like it better!

scarlettsmummy2 · 03/12/2012 20:21

How is it a 'comprehensive' system if you have a grammar stream?? Ie kids that would be in a grammar if they existed? How is it any different? You are still telling those children they are better than those in the bottom class? It's completely hypocritical, you are still putting all the nice middle class children together. It's politically correct nonsense to say otherwise. The comprehensives are STILL failing those from disadvantaged backgrounds, they lump them all in together and focus on the top sets. I know, I see it on a daily basis. Get real.

EvilTwins · 03/12/2012 20:23

But Scarlett, a child might be in top set for Maths and Science but not for MLF or Languages. Comprehensives stream, but no one takes the top % and puts them in a separate "special" stream.

You say that you see it on a daily basis - I certainly don't.

Spockster · 03/12/2012 20:25

Rubbish. I went to a comprehensive. It wasn't perfect by any means , but the top sets had the brightest kids; of all classes (in the socioeconomic sense).

dinkybinky · 03/12/2012 20:30

The tops sets of a comp are equal to Grammar and private schools.

Spockster · 03/12/2012 20:32

And what Evil just said Smile

Spockster · 03/12/2012 20:33

Do are you saying the thick kids in private schools are equivalent to the top sets of a comp? Utter drivel.

scarlettsmummy2 · 03/12/2012 20:35

Yes, so therefore what's the problem with having a grammar if they are just the same anyway?

What I see on a daily basis is the children for the poorest backgrounds being left to flounder at the bottom. If it was a truly comprehensive system this wouldn't be the case.

scarlettsmummy2 · 03/12/2012 20:36

No i am not saying the top sets in a grammar are the same as the less bright in a private.

EvilTwins · 03/12/2012 20:39

I don't agree with the grammar system. I just don't and I never will. That is my opinion, and one to which I am entitled. IMO, grammar schools should be abolished, as should league tables, and children should go to their closest secondary school. Even then, there wouldn't be a "true" comprehensive system, but it will be closer than we currently have.

rabbitstew · 03/12/2012 20:50

Well now, let me think... why are top sets different from entirely different schools???... Could it be because once you are in an entirely different school, there is hardly any movement in or out of it, regardless of whether you turn out to have merited your pass or fail; there is less scope for catering for children who are particularly gifted in one area but who have significant difficulties in others; and less scope for dealing with children who took longer to mature than others? All the same problems can occur in badly run comprehensives - there are lots of complaints about sets being more or less set in stone very early on - but at least it isn't hard wired into the system in a comprehensive school, giving one hope that a well run school with rigorous tracking of students (should be easier these days with so much technology to help...) might actually cater better for children with a less standard background or developmental profile. Having separate grammar schools means everyone concentrates on them... just as per this thread.... so doing nothing to help the failing bottom sets of the bottom schools.

exoticfruits · 03/12/2012 21:01

Of course you stream-it is entirely unfair to put a DC who can't read into the same class as those who will end up doing English at Oxford! (on both ends)
The comprehensive doesn't actually stream, it sets so that the DC who is great at English will be in the top set but they might be hopeless at Maths and in a lower set.
The only fair way to get a system would to be to have it designed by someone who didn't know what class they were going to be born into, how much money they would have and how bright their DCs would be. (Then they would have to ensure a good education for the poor and not so bright.) There isn't a single person on here who could say, hand on heart, that they wanted grammar schools knowing their DC wouldn't get a place.
Personally I think that if we do have them they shouldn't automatically keep their place and at the end of the year those that are out performing them in the secondary modern swap places.
(the beauty of the comprehensive is that this happens)

seeker · 03/12/2012 21:04

But what about the children who are not in the top streams? And actually, if it was a true comprehensive there wouldn't be ANY streaming."

Why non earth not? Comprehensive refers to the intake.

I do wonder if a lot of the horror at the thought of comprehensive schools on thread like this is because lots of people think this.

Spockster · 03/12/2012 21:05

No Scarlett; but Dinky appeared to.

seeker · 03/12/2012 21:06

Another reason that putting the children in different schools is a bad idea is that you make the secondary modern children very publicly "second class citizens" academically. Everyone who sees them knows they haven't made the grade. And it is ridiculous to say that this will not have an impact on many of them.

TheElfOnThePanopticon · 03/12/2012 21:12

I live in a university town. There are many, many people round here who value learning and education extremely highly, which is why they are academics. Academia generally doesn't pay terribly well, so they all send their children to the local state schools which are extremely good and not selective.

I grew up in an area with a grammar school system, and it was staggeringly unfair. Lots of middle class children went to independent primary schools, and the very few state schools in middle class areas spent the year before the 11+ giving all the pupils intensive tutoring (practice tests daily with weekly ones under full.exam conditions). If a child failed the test, he or she could still attend a grammar school if they went as a fee-paying boarder, so the well-off kids never went to a secondary modern. Some of the 11+ failures actually ended up among the brightest in their year groups.

NotGoodNotBad · 03/12/2012 21:26

"I live in a university town. There are many, many people round here who value learning and education extremely highly, which is why they are academics. Academia generally doesn't pay terribly well, so they all send their children to the local state schools which are extremely good and not selective. "

If only.... I on the other hand live in an area where many people do not value learning and education, and hence there are state schools which are not extremely good.

exoticfruits · 03/12/2012 21:28

That is precisely why I moved, The Elf, there are no grammar schools, there are a lot of high achieving professional parents who want the best for their DCs and use the state system. Any parent's evenings are full of parents asking earnest questions about Oxbridge etc. They don't put up with disruptive classes!

exoticfruits · 03/12/2012 21:30

That is what is wrong with the system NotGood but you improve for all-not cherry pick the best and leave the rest to rot!

PlaySchool · 03/12/2012 21:37

some of the 11 plus failures actually ended up the brightest in their year groups

This was me. I was a paid for pupil in a grammar. I did far better than many of the girls who passed the 11 plus but according to the exam, I should have gone to a secondary modern. Failing the exam had a disastrous impact upon my self confidence and self esteem. Nevertheless, I ended up at a red brick uni and did very well academically.

It is for this very reason that I totally oppose the grammar school system.

Pluto · 03/12/2012 21:42

Check out the number of children on FSM in Kent grammar schools, then compare with the number of children on FSM in comps / sec. moderns. Tells you all you need to know about social mobility and the failure of the 11+ to resolve these inherent problems. Grammar schools here are for those who can afford them - the middle classes.