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.

I think you can be quite brilliant in many ways but fail to get into grammar schools - but I don't think grammar schools pretend to cater for every kind of brilliuance. They are for academic children ie children who desperately crave an academic education. In the words of my dd, when asked by the deputy head of her new school when she met him a few months before starting why she had chosen the school, she said because she wanted to go somewhere where the work was 'hard' - she was so desperately bored of everything being easy and having nothing to do for half her lessons. She wanted to know stuff, lots of it and quick, without having to wait for all the average kids to grasp what the lesson was about. I don't think it's unreasonable that she should receive appropriate lessons for her needs. I think that's what state education should provide, to all pupils, not just average ones.

I certainly couldn't have told at 4 who would achieve at 11 - I think that shows a massive failure on the part of seeker's primary school if pupils progress was so entirely dependent on parental support - but does not reflect on the grammar school system that I can see.

The real issue, as is becoming more and more apparent from this thread, is the need for much more successful intervention at primary or pref pre-school level, to fully support kids without supportive parents, and ensure they make as much progress as their friends from more educated/richer homes. But this needs to tart many years before the 11+ - trying to change a child's life chances at 11 is leaving it way too late. Agree that reading is probably the single most important skill kids can master early - if they are good and keen readers they can more or less teach themselves.

I would agree with your last paragraph, breadandbutterfly.

I think that rather than try and do the impossible and devise a tutor proof test, it would be best to have an interview after the test-without setting eyes on the parent.

The grammar school system fails DCs, but the present comprehensive also fails DCs.

I think that the whole education system needs an overhaul -starting with 'what is the purpose of education?'

But the interview would cost too much.

I just think reception bit early to tell and map a path for their lives

some kids click into reading in years 1, 2 and 3.

seeker as it a very affluent leafy primary school with good sats anyway?

There will always be inequalities in the uk education system.

There will be good and bad schools in both sectors.

grammers are really just seen as state schools with private ethos.

as for the dysfunctional familes.

well they disadvantaged when they start preschool not just school.
its hy theirs now childcare grant for 2year olds.

but as much as outside agencies try fill the gap surestart, hv, preschools opnly so much can be done.

no substitute for

child being read to
interacted and played with

more money needs to be spent on preschool education.
thats where they can make real difference.

you know im even for them scrapping reception and kids starting year later and spending longer in preschool.

I also think when they get to school the disadvantaged ones identified and a sort of education hit squad of tas, mentors giving them additional support throiughout primary.

One school even did a free breckfast club as kids focus so much better when they had something to eat things most people take for granted.

But all this is too pricey,.

primarys the huge issue here .

maybe free tutor in grammer areas through school if teacher can identify hos capable.

One thing that puzzles me about the grammar/Sec Mod split is that isn't it a left over from the days when the school leaving age was 15? Those who were expected to get O levels were deemed suitable for the GS and expected to stay to 16, those not, were 'selected' for the Sec Mod and could leave with no qualifications whatever. (The better Sec Mods did manage to put pupils in for O levels, but I think there was some sort of fiddle going on to do so.)

Surely this split became totally irrelevant once the school leaving age was raised to 16 sometime in the mid seventies?

Grammar schools also used to have more money per capita spent on them than SMods - does anyone know whether this is still the case in those grammar authorities?

grammar schools where we live, we are have less money spent on them - or so they told us. they weren't allowed to expand either

There is also nothing 'modern' about the Sec Mods!
All it really means today is that they are the same -but with the very top end creamed off-so I really can't see why they can't be in the same buildings.

Oooooo great thread.
I have a ds who tried to get into grammar school this year. We went through the whole rigmarole of tutors and he nearly got in. Other boys in his class also went through the tutoring process and nearly got in. The only boy who did get in was 'off sick' for the ENTIRE first half of term! - hm... Methinks being heavily tutored! So tutoring doesn't necessarily work unless you do it for years intensely.
I know of kids being taken out of state school and put into private prep at year 5 so they are ready for grammar entrance. We weren't that organised or rich and our kids have to pay for that by not getting into a 'good' school.
I have a friend whose son is now at cambrindge studying classics (clearly exceptionally bright) he failed to get into grammar school but got a scholarship to a good private school - clearly private schools know what to look for in a child!!!
The previous high mistress of a top private school admitted that she failed to pass her 11+. It is a system that doesn't work and has never brought out the best in children. It needs scrapping.
On the subject of education I think the whole system needs to change. How much of our 'education' is necessary? Maths and English - yes. Basic science- yes.
But what about skills that are actually necessary in the workplace or in life generally????????
Our system of education feeds children through a factory of mostly useless study based on their age alone not on whether they are individually ready for it.
It assumes tha all children should have the same capabilities at the same age, that all children should be ready for exams at the same age, and that academic study is the highest achievement of education.
WHAT IS OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM FOR?????
Do we want it to provide rounded individuals who are ready for life and all it's trials and tribulations, who understand economics and where food comes from and can make educated choices or children who know about the properties of phosphorus and can do algebra....just.

There is also nothing 'modern' about the Sec Mods!

No, of course not, but I refuse to refer to them as 'comprehensive' when they are most certainly not.

High schools might be a better name, except that my grammar school called itself a High School.

I don't think any exam is untutorable. Part of Tiffin schools boast is their exam is untutorable and you should see the amount of tutoring that goes on for it as illustrated in this threadwww.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/1459677-Tiffin-Schools-Admission-Arrangements.

All tutoring does is show the huge gap between primary and secondary school. If children were taught properly they would not need to be tutored. Some of my friends children got into GS from private school without being tutored because the work they did at prep school covered all they needed to know. Why don?t state schools do the same?

How do you work that out, dinkybinky? It is a competition that selects the top 5%, 10%, 23% or whatever. It doesn't matter how well or badly primary schools teach, parents will be trying to ensure that their child gets into that top per cent. After all, they must assume that their child is doing reasonably well at primary school to even be considering grammar school in the first place.

As to why primary schools don't cover all children need to know, in some cases, they are simply not allowed to. When some selective authorities replaced tests of maths and English with tests of VR and NVR, the idea was to test raw intelligence so, apart from some familiarisation tests, schools were banned from teaching VR and NVR. And, under normal circumstances, why would they?

@suburb - I like how you blamed not having enough years of tutoring as the reason for those kids not getting into GS.

It takes about a month for a child to get familiar with the different types of questions and about 5 months of practice to get the child to a position where they can work fast enough to finish the paper and to check the answers. Doing this for years does not improve a child's performance by much. I mean, are you going to do the 100m noticeable faster if you trained for years as opposed to months?

"I certainly couldn't have told at 4 who would achieve at 11 - I think that shows a massive failure on the part of seeker's primary school if pupils progress was so entirely dependent on parental support - but does not reflect on the grammar school system that I can see. "

The problem here is that you are assuming that passing the 11+ is anything to do with making progress at school. Lots of children progressesd from a verynlow level starting at our school ( very disadvantaged area, very high FSM %) tonlevel 5 SATS. But failed the 11+. I couldn't necessarily pick out the level 5 at SATs people, but the 11+ passers wre easy to identify. Sadly.

@APMF - of course your going to run the 100 m faster if you have yrs as opposed to months of practice and ditto for tutoring.

I'm not saying that it is entirely down to some kids having yrs of tutoring and some only having months but it DOES make a difference.

Just in the same way that even 'outstanding' state primary schools are just not getting their brightest students up to the same grades as the average private school students leaving a massive discrepancy in the opportunities for state school kids getting into GS ..... Unless of course the parents have the money to put into lots of tutoring

@seeker - totally agree - the SATs levels seem to have very little to do with 11+ levels

Do people really care what hqppens to any child who isn't their own? Or about the sort of society we're creating?

I do, don't think I am the only one.

How about you?

I'm sure a lot of people do. I just find the number who don't very depressing.

@seeker - You are doing your signature 'hypocrit' thing again. If your DC had passed the 11+ he would be saying goodbye and have a good life to his Sec Mod friends. So why are you going on about heartless GS parents who only care for their own DCs?

I think everyone on this thread cares about other people's children as well as their own seeker, very much, whether pro or anti grammar - maybe you need to accept that just because someone's views differ to yours it does not mean that that is because they 'don't care' and 'you are right'.

Re your previous point, the Kent 11+ or your dcs' primary must be unusual as generally KS2 Level 5s correlate pretty well with 11+ success (well, the latter is a subset of the former). In our school, the kids top at SATs were also those who passed 11+. No difference at all. But maybe the Kent test is particularly skewed?

No he wouldn't- he would still be friends with them as he is now with his grammar school friends. You can be offensive to me, but being offensive about my child is not acceptable.

And it may have escaped your notice, but I have been banging on about this subject for years now- long before I had a child of secondary school age. And I have been entirely consistent throughout.

Well I certainly care about DC other than my own. What an odd and alien idea.

Yup, SATs levels here correlate well as well. Honestly, very few surprises. What's going on in Kent?

@seeker - You keep going on about how GSs are bad because it creams off the top 23%. The parents of the 23% are, in your eyes, unfeeling people because they don't care about the 77% that get left behind.

If your DC had passed you would quite happily joined the 23% Club. But because your DC didn't pass you regularly appear on MN and denigrate the parents who want a selective education for their kids.

As for saying that you aren't a hypocrit because your anti GS views have been consistent over the years, you may have talked the talk for a number of years but you chose not to walk the walk when the time came. To me, that is hypocrisy in action.

"All tutoring does is show the huge gap between primary and secondary school. If children were taught properly they would not need to be tutored. Some of my friends children got into GS from private school without being tutored because the work they did at prep school covered all they needed to know. Why don?t state schools do the same? "

Again I heart you Dinky - with this proviso - I think it shows the huge gap also between private primary - which doesn't have to follow the National Curriculum - and state primary - which is hog-tied by it.

Why don't state primaries look at prep schools and think - ok we'll do that. We'll do whatever we can to change the gap and stop blaming pushy parents or lazy parents or rich parents or poor parents. Let's do as much as we can in the same way.