11plus - grrr!

[stroppyknickers]

Ok, I know I have to buy into it to ger dd into a good school, but really. She is v bright, SATS last academic year (4) showed above average etc. Then, she sat the Bond assessment papers yesterday and scored about 50%! So, it seems that the 11 plus is completely different to school work, and you just train them to pass it (hence dd's friends being tutored since Xmas/ studying weekly etc) How is this fair? If I was a single parent, skint, (as I was b4 meeting dh) there's no way I could afford the test papers etc, so dd would fail thro not understanding the questions. Any opinions?

We haven't had our booklet yet. Apparently being handed out tomorrow. Do they say anywhere how many places are available? It's a little pointless in saying 11000 children have registered unless you know how many places are available.

theres about 150 per grammar school there 3 girls ones here. want me to look up anyone in particular? My email is [email protected] if you dont want to say online. Im usually charliecat.

sorry not read all thread

you DO have to teach to the papers but in our area private schools at huge advantage as they have special clubs and lessons

tutors are the way to go but i am averse to this and have got 3 in (out of area) by buying the papers at smiths ( op you could have copied them for money saving)

ime the over tutored ones struggle when they get there if they are not up to it

No, it's fine thanks. There are really only 2 schools we would consider. DS1 and DS2 are at the grammar 10 minutes' walk away, and DS3 wants to go there. If he doesn't pass, he'll get into the local high school, which is excellent, and he asked me today if he'd go there if he didn't pass. When I said yes, he was very happy because he already knows that 2 of his best friends will be going there.

nvr is the hardest bit

ok

You're not in M/s are you, CC?

no, rickman/harman is with a dd doing the 11plus though

OOOh, Freckle, I'm in m/s if I've understood your code. DD sits it next year. Can't believe 11,000. OMG. Just shows how little faith people have in the alternative in Kent. Ergo, let's get rid of grammars and have decent comprehensives...Good luck undercovercat.

That's the thing. There are all these people saying let's get rid of the grammars, when the statistics show that the vast majority of parents want their children to attend one. Bizarre.

The trouble is that the vast majority of people who want to keep them assume that their DC will pass the exam! Their DC will not necessarily get a place! Lots of highly intelligent people who have done well in life failed the 11+.

What good would it do to get rid of the grammar schools?

It wouldn't throw children on the scrap heap at 11.

You think it would mean all schools suddenly became great? I dont think having bright motovated children in other schools would help raise standards. I think it would just mean that they would be dragged down too.
And my kids will be going to a crap school if they dont pass, and even if they do as there arent enough places to go round.

motivated, excuse any other errors!!

No, of course all schools won't become great.
It won't happen until they change comprehensives and stop thinking one size fits all. Under the umbrella of the comprehensive they should be offering different things. There should be much more emphasis on practical subjects. On the same site they should all start the same but later on go down completely different routes. It worked perfectly well in good secondary moderns where the top forms were equal to grammar (with cleverer DCs in many cases)and it went down to those who couldn't read aged 14. It didn't try and get those who couldn't read taking exams in French!
I think the grammar school system would work if they had different tiers, the same uniform and people could move between the schools. In the old grammar school system children had a place and then left after O'levels (taking a space that could have gone to someone else). They were never moved down if they did badly! Technical schools would be a great idea.
It is supposed to be an escape route for the clever working class but it no longer works on ability alone-pushy parents exploit the system with extensive coaching. If they are going to keep the 11+ they should change the exam so that it is a real test of initiative and it is impossible to teach to the test.(not sure if it is possible).

Abbey A - you've put what I would say if I hadn't drunk lots of wine. I just think that (esp round here) there are super duper grammars churning out straight A types en route to uni and then the rubbish secondariess no-one wants to go to. Esp not the children who know there was an alternative if they weren't 'thick' (that's how they feel, not how I feel) or if the parents had paid for tutoring/ papers etc. Yes, I do know children who haven't gone to grammar who do feel as if they are missing out.

I do think the whole "get rid of grammars" argument merely highlights that other schools need to be tackled re standards. The alternative to grammar should not be "the scrap heap". Really. Should it?

When I was at school there were grammars, technical high schools and secondary moderns. The techs offered more practical, vocational courses, and I think this is what is missing these days.

Getting rid of grammars won't improve the "scrap heap". Improving the high schools, getting them to the same achievement levels, dependent upon pupils' abilities, as grammars is what will improve the scrap heap. I fail to see how getting rid of high achieving schools will make for a better education for all.

Technical schools are what is missing.
If they have different schools there should be continual movement between them. Those who don't cope at Grammar Schools should be moved to secondary moderns. Those over achieving at secondary moderns should be moved up.
This is what actually happens in the comprehensive!
IMO it is a crime to put a DC in a school at 11 and make them stay there-regardless of how they perform!
Secondary moderns are full of high achieving DCs, but they have to wait until they are 16 to get into the 6th form. Children leave grammar schools without doing A'levels (they shouldn't have had a place).
Comprehensives have streaming and movement up and down-a much better system IMO.

I was talking to the head of the boys' grammar and he said that very few of their pupils leave after GCSEs. Almost all go into the 6th form - not necessarily at the grammar, as it depends which course they want to study. Most of the secondary schools round here seem to work together so that the maximum number of courses are available and pupils can opt at 6th form to move to another school because that school offers the course that they want.

Also, children do not stay at the grammar if they are not thriving or achieving. I remember a number of girls moving from my school because they were struggling and DS1 tells me a couple of boys in his year have moved to the local high school. So it's not necessarily set in stone once you start at the grammar.

In our area, children from the comprehensives can apply to the grammar schools for the 6th form, and vice versa. There is a big intake at the grammar schools of children from other schools and many go on to achieve very highly. However a lot of children stay on at the good comprehensives and do just as well (in some cases, better!).I think we are very lucky in our area because we have grammar schools and very good comprehensives too, only a couple of really bad schools, and even though there is huge competition for the grammar school places, you are not left 'on the scrapheap' if you don't get in (some people do not even want to try for the grammar schools). However, it is interesting that, even though we have excellent comprehensives, the grammar schools are still massively oversubscribed and obviously there is still great demand for their existence!

Haven't read the whole thread, but the papers just need practice. It is all to do with technique. If your child is bright, you should be able to get them up to about 80% by about the fourth paper. Don't despair.

State schools are not allowed to prepare children for the 11plus, so they have never seen the papers before.

Where do you live? I might be able to dig out some old bond assessment books (I would have to rub out the answers).

email is

3tadpoles at gmail dot com

Re: tutoring. Lots of people mistakenly think that "in the past" there was no tutoring for 11 plus, that you just took it and if you managed a certain % you were in.

Everyone took the 11 plus when I was at primary school (1960's) and we did not have private tutors, BUT we were tutored at school day in and day out. We did zillions of practise papers (without knowing that's what we were doing) and then one day we did some and were told afterwards we had just taken the 11 plus. It was just like any other day in top year of Junior School !

Everyone took 11 plus when I was at school too (1960s) but we didn't practice!! I remember just suddenly doing it one day. So probably proves the point that it has always been thus, ie that those 'in the know' get the advantage, and probably explains why I was the only girl in our school to get in while there were quite a lot from other schools.

The 11+ exam is fine for a crude separation of the high flyers from the low achievers, but it useless for the bulk in the middle. At some point it has to draw a line and there is absolutely nothing between the children on either side of it. It doesn't allow for late developers.
My brother can be used an example of how ludicrous the system is, he failed the 11+ and did a year in a secondary modern. He passed at 12 and changed to the grammar school. A year later he was identified as a high achiever and put in with a small, select band who were accelerated a year!!
Now that most people are encouraged to go to university I expect that most grammar school pupils do stay on. That certainly wasn't the case in the 60's and 70's and many left after O'levels to work in banks etc.
In my town there wasn't a single case of grammar school pupil being asked to transfer to the secondary modern.
The comprehensive system is much fairer. I think that my DS1 would have been borderline, (pass if coached, fail if not coached). Luckily we had moved by then to a comprehensive system. He came on in leaps and bounds in year 7 and was able to go up to the top set in everything and eventually went to a very good university. It would have been very different if he had been stuck in a secondary modern with no hope of moving to the grammar until he was 16.
I think that we should be getting the best for all children not just the lucky few who are either naturally bright or have parents who put time, energy or money into coaching for the test.
I don't think that the present comprehensive system is best for all children, but it could be if we stopped expecting them to all jump through the same hoops.