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

[breadandbutterfly]

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.

Exactly Seeker. Many people simply do not possess the cultural capital that would drive them to support their children by hiring a tutor/downloading free practice papers etc.

Ok, here's my experience of the 12+ in Slough in 1987. No one got tutored. Most peoples parents worked at Heathrow, Fords or Slough Trading Estate. Most were skilled hourly employed, except for Lorraine's dad who was a company director - it turned out to be a building firm, so not as posh as it sounds. One Eton school boy on hearing director asked "what films?
My dads a director too." The bastard's probably running the country now.

I passed the 12+ by using a few books from smiths (in Slough) the summer holiday before. My brother did fuck all and still passed. Fayazz (the local doc's kid, got tutored, passed finally got in on appeal aged13+)

General attitude was that if you did n't pass, well fair enough you'd never cope with the work any way.

My parents were supportive, they saw the Grammar school as an escape from the tedium of working life that they'd had to endure. But I'd like to remind you parents ,that secondary education is just the start. Before you push your nice, pleasent but just a little bit dim, kid towards tutoring/grammar schools there are lots of ways of earning a living and you can make peolpe very unhappy with your expectations. When your tutoring these kids are you really thinking about them or is it actually about you?

Grammer/ grammar tis a terrible thing. I went into science, bro into computing. Now where are my spell check settings.

I would agree that when I failed it it was at least a fair exam. We all did practise papers at school, they were largely sent home as homework and we marked them together the next day so that you could see where you went wrong. A few people bought a few themselves and did extra but the view was very much that if you were not up to the exam you wouldn't cope with the grammar school.
There was none of the present day idea of 'help, my DC won't pass- get a tutor from the age of 8 so that he is drilled enough to pass'!
My only real grump with it was that it was great as a rough top and bottom separator but somewhere in the middle a line was drawn between 2DCs of equal ability. It also depended on places and had I lived 2 miles away, on the other side of the river my marks would have got me a grammar school place.
Now people see it as the end- they drill their DC and forget it is the start- that DC has to cope. I have known DCs get a place who were completely unsuited. I have also known DCs have to have special coaching in yr7 of the grammar school to attempt to get them up to standard! This is where it would be much better to immediately change the school and say 'sorry, you may have passed on the day but you are not going to cope'.
You should respond to the DC you have- too many people look at their baby and plan the education - rather than wait and see what is suitable- they have in mind a glittering academic future when the DC quite possibly wants to leave at 16 and be a chef- learning on the job.

There are alot of sweeping generalisations on this thread which is why I have stayed away. People don't listen or don't want to accept that some of their stereotyping is wrong. My sons grammar school is not in an affluent area, we are not middle class parents. We work hard & have tried to instil this in our ds'. You will say that we are the exception and not the norm. My friend is a single parent, she has 4 ds'. She took the time to practise with her son. My son is fortunate to go to grammar school & so are his friends from primary school. Grammar schools are about children that work hard regardless of social background. It's not only middle class parents that get their kids tutored. Like someone else said a packet of test papers can be downloaded and photocopied like I chose to do, not because I didn't think he would pass but because I wanted him to be as confidence as he could about doing so. I don't know whether that choice will be right for his siblings, we shall see.

You must know notnagging, that the majority of DC who are there are middle class? I doubt that you have many DCs, if any, who are from dysfunctional, chaotic families with unemployed parents- even though they may have terrifically bright DCs, if they had the slightest support. If they come from a bookless house, where education isn't valued and no one instils a work ethic they haven't a hope ( or similar odds to winning the big prize in the lottery)

Incidentally, I live in a non-grammar school area where our choice was basically a) poor comprehensive b) private school c) move house (admissions are very much catchment-based here.

We chose b).

b) or c) are both very expensive choices, far more expensive than a few hours of tutoring. There are many bright kids at the poor comprehensive, many of whom are unhappy with their education (I know the families personally, this is not a "comprehensives are rubbish" generalisation) - they have no option. It's all very well saying "improve the schools for all" but how exactly? However PC we want to be, we all know that the best so-called comprehensives are in the leafy middle-class areas, and it's down to intake not to teachers or funding. More than a certain percentage of trouble-makers, children of drug addicts, low-aspirational families and messed-up kids and the whole school is affected. Just how do you fix this?

Exotic fruits. You can't make such sweeping generalisations. My sons school is a mixture of backgrounds. Yes alot are middle class, aspiring or otherwise. It is not wrong to aspire or value education. My parents are very much working class but they had aspirations for us & see education as a way to a better life.

Should add, some of the kids who are unhappy at the comprehensive are maybe not bright enough to be grammar-school material if we had one, but still they want - and deserve - a decent education, which they are not getting.

More than a certain percentage of trouble-makers, children of drug addicts, low-aspirational families and messed-up kids and the whole school is affected. Just how do you fix this?

That's a question that goes beyond what schools can or should do - but I don't think the answer is 'put them in a school where there are no very bright children and no culture of aspiration'.

Some great posts, CrapJokeThing, NotNagging and exoticfruits.

NotNagging - Agree with the lazy steretyping of grammar schools and grammar school kids in this thread - yes, I'm sure there are some grammar schools full of prep school kids or v rich kids but equally there are many poor kids who have had their lives changed by getting into grammars - I have many examples in my immediate family (in laws etc). Not middle class or rich kids at all. Agree that the system as it is now is in need of reform, to bring it closer to its original aims of selecting purely on merit not on parental wage packet or clout, or ability to afford prep school fees. Hence the suggestions made by Kent in the OP.

exotic - what you say about poor, disadvantaged kids is true but primary or pre-school education is surely the place to focus on to solve this - these kids need to receive help before the age of 11.

exotic - totally agree that the modern idea of cramming for the 11+ has the causation all the wrong way round. Parents (usually those with no experience of grammar schools themselves) often seem to imagine that if only they get little Johnny into grammar, their job is done and he is 'made' for life. The reality is that if little Johnny can get into the grammar he is probably a bright kid and in a school with a good learning environment, will achieve well. But it is not some sort of magic fairy dust scattered by the grammar school that achieves this, just Johnny's own native brightness and a solid learning environment. If Johnny is not really that bright, being at a grammar won't magically improve his grades if he manages to squeak in on the waiting list - it will probably just give him a lifelong inferiority complex and his parents a large bill for ongoing tutoring. But for genuinely academic kids, grammar schools do present a wonderful opportunity to just focus on the academics.

CrapJokeThing - totally agree that academic education isn't for everyone and a child forced into it when they have no real interest/ability is no kindness to the child. i say this as someone academic but poor and useless in lots of practical ways - i am keenly aware that being bright does NOT mean that everything in life is guaranteed rosy. There are many skills and abilities that are far more important in real life than just the ability to pass exams and remember stuff. Kids with great EQ rather than IQ will probably be far more successful; I envy people with the many practical skills, physical coordination etc that I lack. I do think this 'cult of the academic' is a bit ridiculous really -there are so many important and well-paid jobs that do not require great academic skills or grades - I certainly don't think 'less' of anyone who failed the 11+, so do not really get why others on here do?

Maybe it's because there are fewer and fewer well paid jobs for the well co-ordinated, physically competent, emotionally literate but academically unsound than there used to be, breadandbutterfly? Because society is becoming more divided again?

In fact, on the contrary, I look up hugely to those who possess the many skills I don't have - academic achievement is maybe overvalued by those who didn't achieve it, on this thread? As someone who was consistently academically successful, I'd say I see academic interests/skills as quirks of a person, in the way another person might be great at sport or art or cooking. I certainly don't see the Oxford don as intrinsicaly more 'important' than the plumber - he's unlikely to even be paid as well. A lot of those who object to grammar schools on this thread express a kind of unspoken elitism - that only academic achievement 'matters' and so any child sent to a school that focuses less on academic matters is a 'failure'. I blame this partly on league tables, which focus purely on exam grades to the excusion of other factors arguably far more important in children's school experience. School should be about learning, obviously. But true learning can not always be measured in exam grades. I am not sure that a string of A* grades is desirable in itself - it is what one does with what one has learnt that matters.

I don't think less of anyone that failed the 11+ either. It is not for everyone. I have twins and it will be interesting when it is their turn as one really wants to go.

I write this as someone whoe parent pushed me very hard academically, because they had left school at 16, never went to uni - they imagined top grades from top unis opened every door. But the world they grew up with where those with good grades got guaranteed top jobs for life has also vabished, rabbitstew. Flexibility and creativity is probably more important these days.

If my children were thick skinned, had oodles of common sense, a relatively high degree of ruthlessness and an entrepreneurial spirit, I wouldn't be too bothered about their academic qualifications. Since they are naturally academic and not thick skinned and ruthless and one is not possessed of much practical ability, so could never work as a plumber even if he wanted to, I think they will probably be better off utilising their strengths and finding a school to help them with that - until a school comes along that effectively teaches common sense, ruthlessness and entrepreneurial skills, and teaches my impractical ds how to be clever with his hands. Schools are asked by government to focus on the academic, so it's not surprising they are judged by that.

Flexibility and creativity are not deemed important by Michael Gove, which is probably as good an advert as any for parents who can get out of state education to do so, isn't it?

What creative, flexible jobs do you have in mind that pay well and don't require high levels of literacy and numeracy, breadandbutterfly? And how should employers assess the degree of creativity and flexibility of any potential candidates? And do employers really want too many creative and flexible employees, or would employers rather their employees did what they were told accurately and effectively or go off and work for themselves?

It isn't even clear to me that most employers have a clear idea of what they want - just a clear idea of what they don't want, academic skills they do need and a nebulous idea of what they do want beyond that (ie you know it when you see it, but it's a different combination of attributes each time).

Which country is it where they have something like 3 types of schools, academic, vocational and whatever it is. Children move between these 3 types of schools easily and without prejudice, as their individual needs change. Holland? Somewhere like that.

Sorry, can't give more detail, someone told me of it a few days ago, but I'm in the middle of norovirus and can't remember the details.

Anyway, it seemed eminently sensible, and a darn sight more sensible than what we have.

I meant flexibility in terms of moving from job to job, career to career as things change, rather than within one job.

Creativity - could be anything from artistic to entrepreneurship.

And I think you've fixated a bit much on the plumber, rabbitstew - that was an example off he top of my head. Not suggesting everyone who is not academic becomes a plumber! But conversely, the fact that your ds is not suited to be a plumber does not mean no-one is.

Germany has 3 types of schools, academic, vocational and a sort of halfway house. I don't think all Germans are entirely enamoured of their system, though. The system actually bears quite a close resemblance to what was originally intended in this country, with grammar schools, secondary technical schools and secondary modern schools, but the provision was so patchy around the country that there was no guarantee that there would be enough grammar school places in a particular area to meet need and demand, lots of places had no secondary technical schools at all, and the secondary moderns and secondary technical schools were grossly underfunded, so didn't provide what was promised of them, anyway - plus the class system in this country meant that everyone still viewed grammar schools as the only way of getting to the top.

I don't think artists will ever make any money if they keep moving "career," nor will doctors, given how much time they have to devote to training for the first career. Often, people who can move from job to job can do so because none of the jobs are very well paid.

rabbitstew - My point was not that people choose to move from career to career but that in the modern world, virtually no-one has a guaranteed job for life and so however much you might like to stay put, circumstances may dictate that you have to switch. Which is where flexibility is important.