Is everybody happy with their choice of a NON-selective secondary education over a selective one?

[AdventuresWithVoles]

Genuine question.

Great post, Tiggytape.

I went around many Preps and was struck how many children would be able to do 11 plus papers standing on their head. In some schools timed tests were routine from Y3 or even before. 11 plus targeted homework was given at least twice a week from Y3 etc. One near where we were in the UK was non selective and nearly everyone passed for the local, highly selective grammar.

I feel for the PP that talked about crawling through the test with their child. I know what they mean. Thing is if they are at a school where they prepare for so many years it's absolutely second nature, falling of a log and something to be enjoyed even.

I remember visiting a prep and a Y4 class were doing a timed test, one of many they did from time to time, the atmosphere in the room was absolutely calm and the children didn't appear under pressure. This was clearly absolutely normal for them, standard, fun even.

Our school offers a few sessions of VR etc and we are told that's all a bright child needs. I don't think many have any idea how advantaged those are at Prep schools. If it wasn't so unfair it would be side splittingly funny, they have absolutely no idea whatsoever. How many have routine, daily practice against the clock for literally years before the 11 plus? Timing is just one aspect but it trips so many up.

Tiggy - I reached exactly the same conclusion for my DD as that mum you knew.

She has always been right at the top academically, went to top academic prep and was in top 3 in class for just about everything. However, her passions have always been writing, music, dance and drama. Her dream is to write and star in a West End musical! She did great academically at the prep and had lots of friends but I always sensed a bit of anxiety and she didn't seem entirely happy.

We have one of the most sought after super selective state grammars in our town. Hysterical competition, many of the girls at the prep sat entrance test, only a few each year gained places. So it was assumed by many that I would be sitting DD for this. Looked around on open day, talked to teachers. Very clear there was a massive emphasis on academics, especially science and maths, no interest in creative arts, parents who get their DCs in the school don't want it. They see creative pursuits as frivolous distractions from the serious business of gaining aa string of A*s. I just knew my creative DD would shrivel in this environment.

In the same town (luckily for us, only a short walk away) is very highly performing and popular girls comp. Lovely atmosphere, great for creative arts. I just got a very strong feeling DD would thrive. It does have streaming from the word go, though. But it has a reputation for being the second choice for those who do not make it into the grammar (which is about 99.9% of the local population! No catchment area).

I made the decision to send DD to the comp and not to sit her for the grammar. The parents at the prep cannot comprehend that anyone would pass up the chance of a place at the grammar, so just assume that she sat the 11+ and i just don't want to admit she failed!

Do I care? Hell, no! My DD is absolutely thriving and is happy and relaxed in a way she has not been before. Her academics are flying (7a for English and maths, 6s in most other subjects) and she has loads of time for all her artistic pursuits both in and out of school. Best decision we ever made!

Interestingly, DD tells me that several of her friends who sat the test actually put the grammar as second choice after the comp as they were using it as a back up in case they were out of catchment for the comp.

Anyway, sorry for the long ramble, but I agree wholeheartedly that just because a Dc is bright enough to gain a place it does NOT mean that the selective education available at a grammar will be right for them.

Fun? Timed tests, fun? I'm sorry I'd far rather my junior aged children were doing forest school etc than timed tests. Whether that makes the 11 plus harder or not.

I do understand that a highly academic education can be challenging and rewarding, but the idea of an education where timed tests become something my children see as fun fills me with some sort of horror tbh.

Seeker - I've noticed that you use the word 'failure' a lot in your posts.

You go on about how those who didn't past the 11+ are made to feel like 'failures' by the adults around them. Even kind people who stop and commiserate kids are seen by you as parents rubbing it in that their DC had passed.

I didn't see myself as a failure simply because I didn't pass the 11+ but I can imagine feeling that way if I had you as a parent subconsciously conveying the thought that society considers me a failure for not passing.

Is it possible that kids feel like failures, not because of society making them feel that way, but because people like you are telling them that society view them as failures?

Hamish - your post illustrates that the 11+ is a poor indicator of intelligence and should not be used to decide who will benefit from an academic education, as it is clear intensive teaching to the test gets very average kids in.

Mind you, it is not news that passing these tests can be coached. My DM studied this as part of her degree and tells me that several big studies were done in the 60s which showed coaching in exam techniques increased scores in these tests significantly.

Always makes me laugh when the head of our local superselective trots out the usual speech about their test being impossible to tutor for. You can tell she doesn't even believe it herself, but she can't possibly admit that her school is full of kids who got there because their parents could afford coaching.

Seeker - I've noticed that you use the word 'failure' a lot in your posts.

You go on about how those who didn't past the 11+ are made to feel like 'failures' by the adults around them. Even kind people who stop and commiserate kids are seen by you as parents rubbing it in that their DC had passed.

I didn't see myself as a failure simply because I didn't pass the 11+ but I can imagine feeling that way if I had you as a parent subconsciously conveying the thought that society considers me a failure for not passing.

Is it possible that kids feel like failures, not because of society making them feel that way, but because people like you are telling them that society view them as failures?

saintly - exactly, kids should be able to enjoy being kids. If a school discourages that it is wrong for ANYONE, no matter how bright.

My parents didn't make me feel like a failure and neither did the school or anyone else-they were very positive. You know however that you failed an important test and it is going to make life more difficult for you.

Even if we don't use the emotive 'failure', isn't there still something not quite right about ruling out a certain number of possible futures for a ten year old, and deciding at that age what a child is best suited to studying and with whom, though?

Or putting lots of obstacles in front of a 10/11 year old child-while you hand to to another (who may have one mark more)on a plate.

Why does everybody make a big deal about 'heavily tutored' kids?

The first month was to get my DCs used to the format. The remaining 5 months was spent getting them use to working to the clock and not to lose silly marks. I could have tutored them for another 2 years and it wouldn't have made an appreciable difference to their score.

In fact boredom was setting in after month 5 and anyone who has DCs prepping for music exams know what I mean when I say that kids gets overcooked if they spend too long preparing for something.

So when people go on about its so unfair that a kid had been tutored for years I laugh to myself because most likely these kids will have reached their peak a couple of years ago.

Why does everybody make a big deal about 'heavily tutored' kids?

The first month was to get my DCs used to the format. The remaining 5 months was spent getting them use to working to the clock and not to lose silly marks. I could have tutored them for another 2 years and it wouldn't have made an appreciable difference to their score.

In fact boredom was setting in after month 5 and anyone who has DCs prepping for music exams know what I mean when I say that kids gets overcooked if they spend too long preparing for something.

So when people go on about its so unfair that a kid had been tutored for years I laugh to myself because most likely these kids will have reached their peak a couple of years ago.

As a very rough test to sort the top from the bottom it works well. Where it fails is separating the vast mass in the middle.

If your DC did it with tutoring and is managing fine, PooshTun, then so could lots of others-had they had the same.

I think I'd start by taking him to see the comp and particularly the drama section, jimjams. hopefully you'll both love it and then you can keep selling it to him as the best school in the neighbourhood as it offers academic excellence and superb drama.

The problem will be if you genuinely think the grammar is a better school for him and he has some chance of passing but it is not a foregone conclusion, particularly as others seem to think he will definitely pass, which sets up the kind of stressful emotional situation that seeker and many others have faced recently should he not pass. I think that (unfortunately ) I cannot persuade you that grammars are intrinsically evil and therefore inferior by default. But if you do look at the comp and genuinely think "wow, good school , I would prefer him to go there" ds will pick up on that and fall in with your wishes. so that would be the first thing to try.

I love taking tests (when I'm confident I can answer well) and have always relished a challenge - love the St Paul's girls exams. Agree it shouldn't all be about timed tests!

Not sure if you're still around Poosh, but I wanted to comment on your assumption - based on a single set of test results of a 10 year old - that there would be "a lot more kids above [seeker's son] academically" if he were able to access a true comprehensive school. It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of labelling that adds to the unpleasantness of the selection process. A child might be right at the top academically, but not pass the 11 plus for any number of reasons.

I have identical twin sons with similar academic aptitude. They sat exams at 10 for three selective independent schools. Their scores for schools 1 and 2 were very close indeed. For school 3 there was a massive disparity between their maths scores, resulting in the "success" of one and the "failure" of the other. It seems that, had the boys sat only the third exam, random strangers would have felt able to conclude that DT1 was the academic one, while DT2 had "other talents".

exotic - I downloaded free papers from the Internet so, yes anyone could have done what I did.

This is why I get so frustrated with people who go on about how the well-off have an unfair advantage.

It's not the same - the well off do have an enormous advantage if at a Prep etc - see earlier PP. IMO.

I think when you can do something easily its very easy to forgot that it isn't like that for everyone. I'm frequently amazed that my clever, articulate friends can't just help their DCs with preparation for Maths GCSEs - I just got a revision guide and helped with any sections they were stuck on. In my mind anyone could do what I did but instead my friends spent masses of money on Maths tutors. The same friends would probably freak out at an 11+ test because they are unfamiliar with them and they are not confident in their ability to help.

Sorry Poosh - I should have made it clear that my post above was directed at a post you made yesterday evening (16.58). I hadn't seen your posts of this morning.

@tiggy in fact, I chose not to put my DS thought the 11+. In fact, he also chose not to do it, but there were those (eg at his primary school) who suggested that he should give it a go because he is 'very bright' ad because his sister is at the grammar school. But I knew it wasn't the right school for him, because of the way they work, and he, using his observational skills and looking at DD1" completely concurred. Whereas DD1 was desperate to go there and I knew it would be the right environment for the type of person she is, even though she is more artistic than she is academic - although she is very academic. Ultimately it was all about the pace at which they work - she gobbles up work, likes to go at a fasts pace, gets bored very easily. He doesn't. And that was the main basis for my decision.

@Hamish - We considered the 13+ as a back up plan but we discounted it as soon as we saw what the test consisted of. There was no way my DCs could have competed against prep kids in the area of science, maths and languages.

So, yes I agree that kids from well off families have an overwhelming advantage at 13+. But I don't agree that the advantage is so great at 11+.

@Web - I accept your point about how not all parents find it so easy to tutor their kids. But the important thing is that your child's success is not dictated by how much money you have which seems to be the argument being made here.

Some of the parents here are teachers. Some are PhDs. Some are professionals. I would be inclined to poo poo their claims that well off children have an advantage over theirs at 11+. At 13+ definitely bit not at 11+

"Seeker - I've noticed that you use the word 'failure' a lot in your posts.

You go on about how those who didn't past the 11+ are made to feel like 'failures' by the adults around them. Even kind people who stop and commiserate kids are seen by you as parents rubbing it in that their DC had passed.

I didn't see myself as a failure simply because I didn't pass the 11+ but I can imagine feeling that way if I had you as a parent subconsciously conveying the thought that society considers me a failure for not passing.

Is it possible that kids feel like failures, not because of society making them feel that way, but because people like you are telling them that society view them as failures?"

It's raining. I'm bored. I have just gone through my posts and I haven't actually used the word "failure" once. I used the word "failed" once, in inverted commas, and I have talked about the 11+ as a "pass or fail" test. Which it is.

I also said nothing about people "rubbing dc's noses in it". That is pure fabrication.

Have to disagree about 11 plus Poosh BUT there is a difference between an 11 plus entry to a grammar - perhaps only a VR test - and 11 plus to an independent school where you may be assessed on creative writing, comprehension, Maths and VR all to time.

I would argue that a dedicated prep gives a huge advantage particularly if we are talking about 11 plus entry to independent school as described above.