How to hijack the 11+ so your kids get into Grammar School: a guide for the middle classes

[FatherTed]

THIS is why the 11+ and grammar (or grammer depending on which thread you read) doesn't improve social mobility. Sorry, but it's true.

[bossykate]

so what is she going to do then, dw?

[Judy1234]

heifer I think bright children still shine out, though. Certainly the private schools say they can often pick the coached ones. Obviously you need to learn your tables, spellings, how to write an essay and practise a few IQ tests but if someone is really not bright at all - like say Prince Harry, nothing you do them over years of tutoring or schooling is ever going to get them to get good A levels.

Today's Times that it said 36% of top law firms' partners in London went to grammar schools, 11% comprehnsives and 55% independent schools. So that' 47% from the state system which is about the percentage at Oxford too.

That's what worries me - that the grammar school route which produced so many in the Cabinet, business, City is closed off and as the Sutton Trust has found access to university for the poor has been worsened because we aren't prepared to pluck the very poor but bright from the working class environment and move them into a middle class grammar school education system.

[maisym]

why not have one school with different streams for kids - that way they'd all meet up in breaktime & sports. The school would have to be funded for all - why have a few good schools with everything for the choseen 20% - what about the rest?

[Judy1234]

maisy, that's what most comprehensives do - stream. I'm sure it works fine. I think the original 1960s comps didn't do that as it was against the pure principles of it all but it's a compromise. It's what the non academic private schools do too of which there are many despite what you read adn they cater very well indeed for the child who needs a lot of help and encouragement, where getting Cs at GCSE is an outstanding achievement for that child etc.

[Gobbledigook]

Freckle you said 'such as grammars for the academically inclined; technical schools for the more practical; arts schools for the creative, etc.'

We have this locally - state grammar schools, a 'college of arts' and a 'technology college'. The technology college, I know, is oversubscribed and very successful with an 'Excellent' OFSTED report.

So it's not 11+ or sink here, I don't think.

[Freckle]

In my day (she says peering from a very great distance!), we had grammars and technical high schools. You had to pass the 11+ to get into either, but the techs were for the bright but not necessarily academic (as an aside, my younger sister went to a tech, but, as her year was the first intake of girls in a previously all boys school, she remained rather distracted throughout her education and came away, I think, with Maths O level ). Everything else was a secondary modern - which I do believe were pretty dire. Everyone took the 11+.

We do need to look at education from a different angle than simply aiming for a set number of particular exam results. We need vocational courses, practical courses, courses which engage with those who are disenchanted with the whole educational system. Abandoning grammars won't achieve this. Leave the grammars be and concentrate on making the other schools better and more focussed on the needs of their pupils.

[Judy1234]

I can't understand how either political party can think grammars that are here can stay and other areas not get them. Surely either you think they're great and let everyone have them or you shut them down as being politically divisive. Both sides just don't want any trouble. in the 1970s they didn't still have grammar schools where I was brought up.

[Donk]

The comprehensive school I went to at the start of the 70's both streamed AND setted (!). I did well at it as did my particular group of friends. Partly because we were a particularly supportive peer group (in hindsight), but generally the school had a good reputation locally. There was no choice about which school you went to that I recall - you went to the nearest one, unless you were a Catholic and went to St. Wilfreds.
It left me convinced that comprehensive schools can work very well (it was in a rather rough mining town, with a great deal of poverty) - but do not always do so. I was shocked when I went to university, and only one other person I met had been to a comprehensive school.....

[kookaburra]

Thanks, Father Ted - a useful set of tips - will start on them tonite.

[figroll]

Sorry I am too lazy to read the whole thread, but I have 2 kids at grammar school. May be if state schools helped children to pass this test a bit like the private schools do, then more "poor" children would get in. If people didn't have to pay extra for help in Verbal and Non Verbal reasoning, becuase it was available in schools this could help those who have less money.

My children's primary school was totally disinterested in their progress and where they went after they had left. I asked them about the grammar school and they wouldn't even discuss it - I was told that they were sorry, but if I wanted to "prepare" them for an entrance test I would have to arrange this myself. Until this changes, grammars will remain the preserve of those parents who are prepared/able to pay extra or work with their children themselves. (However, they were very self congratulating when they got into the grammar school! - it even appeared as a line in the bl**dy ofsted report).

[Hallgerda]

figroll - I agree with your preparation point. My children's primary school didn't just disapprove before the event, mind...

But I also wonder why schools test VR and NVR anyway now it's been shown to be amenable to practice beforehand, and so clearly isn't an indicator of innate ability.

[hasta]

Certainly it's possible to practise VR/NVR techniques, but after a short while it's a question of diminishing returns. So if after a few weeks of coaching Amy's scores go up from an average 47% to 59%, they are like ly to stay at that level. Ben might have started at 78% and then start to return regular 90%+ scores, on the other hand.

So apart from politics, what's to stop primary schools in 11+ areas setting aside short blocks of time for doing VR/NVR practice ? That would level the playing field somewhat.

I left a very average Northern Ireland primary, not in the best part of town, in the seventies. We did a bit of practice in school but none at home (at least in mine !).
I passed the 11+ . Without a doubt it was my path to social and economic mobility. My father was a retired teacher but totally unengaged in our education (alcoholic). My mother left school at 14, was well meaning, but combined they were the opposite of pushy.

And don't get me started on the state of university education..

[Judy1234]

hasta, I think that's what most parents who traditionally had children taking the 11+ did and indeed I did with my children in teh private system. If they're clever enough to get in fine. If they only get in through intense coaching then they're at the wrong school.

At my daughter's prep which feeds to the seniors when they are in the last year they did some practice papers but I didn't feel it was pressure. It was just having a go as a class at these tests to finish in time and learn how to deal with the papers etc. My recollection was that my daughter found it was fun.

If tax payers' money is going into state primaries in areas where the Governmetn has decided there will be state grammars then a bit of practise on papers should be normal at school.

[Freckle]

Different primaries in this town have differing views on the 11+. One school in particular has an after-school club which is effectively an 11+ coaching club (although they would deny it because the LEA's rules forbid this) - but they set great store on the number of children they send to grammars, so obviously have a vested interest in ensuring their pupils are up to scratch. My boys' primary does nothing by way of practice other than one practice paper in exam conditions the month before the exam proper.

Also, interest in the 11+ varies depending on the admissions criteria of the good high schools. On the other side of town, the high school was never oversubscribed, so they would take anyone - even those who had not passed the 11+. On this side, the high school operated a first preference rule - so that, if you did not put that school as your first preference, they would not consider your application. Obviously if your child was going to sit the 11+, you'd put a grammar as first choice - so the high school was effectively barring those who took the exam and didn't pass. Consequently, only a small number of pupils took the exam - generally those who were almost guaranteed to pass - otherwise they risked being sent to a failing school on the other side of town. This year the first preference rule was banned by the government and practically the whole year sat the 11+ as there was no risk of missing out on the good high school if they failed.

Now the good high school is very good, so why do so many parents want their children to go to the grammars?? In my case, it is because the ethos at the grammar is so much different. Virtually all the pupils want to learn, so there is none of this dumbing down to fit in for fear of being bullied. The discipline appears to be more rigidly enforced (which is no bad thing with teenage boys). My only concern is that it is single sex and my boys have no sisters. However, girls are accepted in the sixth form so hopefully contact with the opposite sex will not be an alien concept by the time the boys leave school .

[figroll]

That is what annoys me, actually, that the LEA funds grammar schools but forbids its pupils to practise the papers whilst in school. It would clearly level the playing field for those less privileged children, if they allowed practise in school. I can't see what the problem is really. As it is the people who can afford tuition or are clever enough to assist the children themselves, are more likely to get their kids in. It is obvious that if the first time you see NVR and VR is on the day of the test, the child is unlikely to succeed.

The tories now say that the schools are populated by the middle classes so they have no value(!!!) I say, do something about it then and help children in state schools.

[Grrrr]

The LEA should either allow the practise of tackling past papers or ban non state school educated children applying to the grammars.

Imagine the howls of anguish from the parents of those who go private early on to try and ensure a decent state secondary school place !

[hasta]

It's a disgrace really. But otoh one can buy practice books quite cheaply on the high street. For about £10 or £20 it would be possible to buy a big enough range of papers for your child to try out before the test.

[Judy1234]

Mmmm, but I think those are relatively few. Most parents at every private schools we've been attached to go on to private at 11 or 13. It is quite rare and usually because of loss of a job or may be just one child a year who is going into the state sector. It's certainly not a major pattern.

The true point of the old 11+ was that it was testing non learned skills and everyone just did it and if they passed they were clever and got in and if they didn't fine.....and coaching for that therefore defeated its purpose so sort out those who on non verbal reasoning did well etc. I also think however good or bad your primary is the very cleverest chidlren even from very poor homes usually do shine out, they write the best essays in terms of ideas etc. It surprises me that the coaching has such an effect. Look at the effort put into Prince Harry and then his A level grades. You can't make a child with a low IQ clever which is why there have always been schools like Harrow for boys who didn't get into Eton etc.

Yet the original link on this thread suggests that all those parents doing all this coaching etc think they can.

[Freckle]

Xenia, I think your experience is not necessarily the norm throughout the country. There are many preparatory schools which are populated by the children of parents who have no intention of paying for private secondary education.

I have a friend whose daughters attended a very exclusive preparatory school. They also paid for a private tutor to ensure their daughters gained a place at the best local state grammar school. They succeeded.

The whole point about the 11+ was that it tested a child's inate ability when presented with the test for the first time. Past papers and tutors have changed the whole approach to the papers, so perhaps a different type of test needs to be devised. Why don't they just go on the basis of the KS2 SATs results?

[hasta]

KS2 Sat results ? Surely not ! My children's schools don't thankfully do sats, but one perennial complaint on here is that the children are taught to the test.

So what would be achieved by assessing them on those results, if the whole idea is to escape from taught skills as opposed to innate abilities ?

[Freckle]

Well, at least everyone will be being taught the same way, not just those children whose parents can afford a tutor.