Is there anywhere you can find out how many passed/failed the 11 plus in your area?

[charliecat]

I have just looked at the local grammar school website and for 140 places there were 461 applications, the next best school is catholic, we are not.
How many kids enter and fail the 11 plus, would all 461 applicants already have sat it when applying?

[tallulah]

In response to miljee's comments about grammar school pupils, my DS1 and DS2 were both offered Aimhigher summer school places. When we asked how they'd been chosen we were told it was because our postcode puts us in a "deprived area" so they were eligible for funding.

Both me and DH left school at 16. He has no qualifications at all and has had a succession of unskilled jobs. Three of our four kids went to grammar school...

[curlew]

Ours is January too - my dd's problem is her maths. It's always been a problem, so we're going to keep practising and hope for the best!

[swedishmum]

Curlew it's in January - we're in SE Kent. She's certainly clever enough, just a bit scatty which is what worries me. She thinks she's filled in answers when she hasn't.

[curlew]

Swedishmum - when does your dd do the 11+?

[swedishmum]

I've filled in my online form now:

Nearest GS
Comp (needs prac. on entrance exam
Slightly further GS

If she doesn't get in I don't really have a plan. She's certainly not going to go to any of the other local schools. I say that as someone who's taught in most of them.

[figroll]

"Council house girls" - did you really say that!

[Freckle]

When I was at school (with a few dinosaurs according to my children!), there were not just grammars and secondary moderns, but also technical high schools which had a more vocational bent. This system seemed to work very well. The grammars took the academically bright, the techs took the more practically minded and the secondary moderns gave a comprehensive education to those who were neither of the former.

People talk about the grammars "taking away" from the high schools financially, but all schools are paid the same per capita so that doesn't ring true. At DS1's school, about 16 years ago there were only 40 pupils at the school and there was talk of merging it with a girls' grammar. That didn't happen and it now has 950 pupils. However, being paid per capita has meant that in the intervening years the school has been seriously under-funded and the fabric of the buildings under-maintained as a result. It is only now beginning to catch up with other schools in the area. On the other hand, the Labour government has thrown money at the high schools to improve them, so I don't see how the grammars have detracted from the other schools.

[tresinia]

Like I said, and demonstrated by Miljee's attitude, bright kids are the one category it seems to be acceptable to discriminate against. (How dare they try and do well for themselves - Miljee seems to think this must automatically be at the expense of someone else!!!) I just don't share this view, but have come across it frequently, particularly when the parents themselves are burdened with "I'm from a council house - whats-your-problem - way of thinking" Some people think all kids should be equal. They are not all equal in their abilities, and while I agree they should get equality of opportunity, to me this means competition and if you can make it in your chosen area you should. Grammar schools should never have been banned, because children from all social backgrounds were able to apply on ability, and many a child who's parents had no financial means benefited greatly from the opportunity grammar schools gave them. They gave true equality of opportunity. The problem was the Government chose not to fund and direct the secondary moderns of the sixties and seventies properly, then everyone was suprised when they failed and the grammar school succeded. Instead of properly funding and supporting vocationally talented children, they closed the grammars. Ridiculous. There are no grammar schools in our area, our DS would have to travel to the city but I cannot see why Miljee hinks it is a problem freeing up a place at an oversubscribed school! And as for "daring" to insist those schools are put first, if this process is such a brilliant idea, why has this has already been challenged and changed in many areas, (been outlawed) and will be in our area from 2008, sadly too late for me. It just depends on your point of view Miljee. We all just want the best for our children.

[Freckle]

Well, I'm in Kent and the vast majority of pupils at DS1's grammar are from state primaries. There is a prep school nearby but very few of their pupils seem to end up at the grammar (mind you, that might be because the school only catered for girls until recently and I suspect many of the girls go to the girls' grammars). But it is quite a small school and even if all its pupils were to achieve grammar school places, it wouldn't impact massively on the available places.

It would be interesting to know how prep school students fare at the grammars. Just because your parents are rich enough to afford a prep school doesn't mean that you have the requisite ability for a grammar.

[miljee]

I honestly don't know which grammars you're talking about- London or Kent maybe? MY experience has been Salisbury. As I mentioned earlier in this topic I myself am an ex-grammar girl from there. These days, the places at the grammars (2x single sex) are hard fought over. Salisbury is strewn with prep schools YET, interestingly, there's only one girls private secondary school (if you exclude the convent) and none whatsoever for boys. When we arrived back in the area from Oz, one of the questions I asked each local primary was their attitude to the 11+. Each and every one said the same thing: We don't encourage it because, unless you can commit to the extra tuition needed to give your child a snowball's chance against the prep school children, you're setting your child up for failure. (Fortunately we live in Hants now!). But, interestingly, we've had a stream of girls trailing through the hospital where I work on 'work experience' prior to med school, from the girls' grammar. I have conversationally asked many about the social makeup there now. All expressed surprise at how many council house girls attended 33 years ago because all, and I mean ALL these girls had been to a prep. and had moved en masse to the grammar with their friends, many of whom lived 30 odd miles away. The grammar has effectively become a de facto private school, paid for by the taxpayer even though the vast majority's kids stand no chance of getting in. It's great news if your 'local' grammar IS local and caters for the needs of the academically able children from the local community but that really isn't the case in Salisbury. Read the OFSTEDs of the other Salisbury comps. Most mention the fact the school's 'average' pupil is inevitably of a lower standard than would be expected, because of the grammars.

[swedishmum]

Dd1's friends at grammar school are all from state primaries too.
I'm not keen on dd2 going to the comprehensive as it's further away, huge and they take KS3 SATS at Y8 at GCSEs in Y10. Like Tallulah I was disappointed in the Open Evening. Better than one of our local secondaries that didn't have an Open Evening, only brief morning tours on designated days "by appointment only". Friends tell me there was a distinct lack of Y11 boys on the tour, and parents were whisked away before the chaos of break.
Back to working on the maths for 11 plus...

[Freckle]

I agree, figroll. We are certainly not posh and my children all attend "bog-standard" state schools. DS1 is at the grammar and DS2 will be sitting the 11+ in January. DS3 is only in Y4 so we will wait to see what we want to do for him.

Most of DS1's friends come from very ordinary backgrounds, all having attended state primaries.

Not sure where this idea of only prep-school graduates attend grammars comes from, unless someone has been watching too many agenda-driven documentaries about the whole secondary school selection process.

[figroll]

Very stereotypical view of grammar school children being expressed here, I must say. Neither of my grammar school children went to prep school and we aren't "posh" either. "Great unwashed hoi-polloi" - your words not mine. There are a lot of children who go to grammars who are from poor areas - they don't get a place because they live in a posh house and their parents are both doctors - which I think can be the case in private schools.

Round my neck of the woods, schools don't know where they were put on the form, ie, first, last. Which was great for us, because we were able to put other schools higher than our local school (which is very good despite having a grammar school on the doorstep, just very large).

Some people have terrible problems with grammar schools and I don't honestly know why. I don't have problems with children attending special schools that meet their needs. My two children spent the final 2 years of primary school doing very little because they both got level 5s in their English/Maths SATs at the end of year 4. So the school didn't really care very much about what they did from that time onwards. The grammar school has been a really good experience for them - not least because they are no longer top of the class. They both became very lazy at primary school - couldn't be bothered, because their work was so unchallenging.

[Freckle]

The only reason parents who enter their child for the 11+ get two bites at the cherry, as it were, is that the result of the 11+ isn't known until after you have to submit your application for schools. If the result was known before, the whole process would be a lot simpler as parents would know whether their child was eligible for the grammar or not.

[curlew]

Two points - you can't have a true comprehensive in an area where you also have grammar schools. In order to work properly, a comprehensive school should have ALL abilities - not possible where the top 10%or so have been creamed off by the grammar school. And I'm interested by a comprehensive having an entrance exam. As I understand it, the ONLY criteria that a non selective school can use to select is religious alliliation and 10% on "aptitude" in music, sport and I think maths. ANd I'm pretty sure that "aptitude" has to mean just that, not achievement. Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points. but if I'm right, swedishmum, then you should question this.

[swedishmum]

If parents have the right to choose a school for their children then they are perfectly entitled to list grammar schools as well as the one and only proper comprehensive in the area. After all the comprehensive itself holds an entrance exam where places are offered to the top 20% before other criteria are addressed. The school in question also has places for "musical excellence" (Grade 4 and above). In my many years as a music teacher I have yet to meet an under-privileged youngster with Grade 4 aged 10! Rules are made to be broken, particularly by the school in question.

[miljee]

Now let's just get this straight- grammar schools such as we are discussing ARE state schools. All of us pay our taxes to support them. Parents who opt to try their (child's!) 'luck' at the 11+ are not doing the rest of us a favour, should their child 'pass', in 'freeing' up a 'state' school place for the great unwashed hoi-polloi whose parents can't afford the tutoring/ private schooling that seems to go on to ensure DS or DD gets in (THANK GOD!). Many are welcome to disagree with that but I base my opinion on first hand experience. Also many of us will remember that TV programme where a 'celeb' revisited their schooldays and one returned to Carshalton Grammar. He asked about ten 11 year old lads whether they'd received any help with their entrance exams and ALL but one had either been 'prepped' or tutored. Hardly a representative group I grant you but interesting none the less. Anyway, this attitude is why, in a nutshell, (and of course in my opinion!), grammar schools can be such a blight on the local education scheme. And for all this 'How DARE they?' discussion where certain popular comprehensive schools are castigated for daring to say 'Show your committment to OUR ethos by putting us first; don't think we'll be your back-up plan should, god forbid, the grammar school application fails', I say Why not? Certain people seem to think it's OK to separate out the 'selective schools' as somehow worthy of a different first-come first-served criterion, yet it's SO not OK for a decent comp to apply the same rules. And what's this 'win/win'? In these SATS league table led times, obviously it is in every school's interests to get the most academic children it can. How can the local comp compete against the existence of a local grammar, 'creaming' off its brightest potential intake? And finally why are grammar school areas bristling with prep schools and 11+ tutors if 'one wouldn't enter one's child for the entrance exam if one didn't think they would pass?'. Isn't it something about wanting cake and eating it?

[tresinia]

Hi Freckle thanks for that link, I read some of the appeals decisions, specifically about this matter in Kent, on the basis that if a child took a grammar school test and failed it, he would get another "first choice" by being allowed to attend his first choice state school and this was discriminating against children who had put it first without the grammar school preference. This was upheld. I just see this back to front socialist envy social engineering. My opinion is that if he did pass for the grammar, he would leave the state place free for another child - as the school is heavily over subscribed anyway, I would have thought this was a win/win. After all if you don't think your child would pass a grammar school test, you just wouldn't ask him to do it. Don't really see how me putting my child in for grammar test discriminates against anyone else. If anything, if he does pass, it helps by freeing up a much wanted place in the state school. I think having a bright child is one of the few areas left where it is acceptable to discriminate. So I think it is very unjust and don't think that selective schools should be included in the process. But in our LEA it still applies I think, and there is nothing I can do. Stinks.

[tresinia]

Hi Freckle thanks for that link, I read some of the appeals decisions, specifically about this matter in Kent, on the basis that if a child took a grammar school test and failed it, he would get another "first choice" by being allowed to attend his first choice state school and this was discriminating against children who had put it first without the grammar school preference. This was upheld. I just see this back to front socialist envy social engineering. My opinion is that if he did pass for the grammar, he would leave the state place free for another child - as the school is heavily over subscribed anyway, I would have thought this was a win/win. After all if you don't think your child would pass a grammar school test, you just wouldn't ask him to do it. Don't really see how me putting my child in for grammar test discriminates against anyone else. If anything, if he does pass, it helps by freeing up a much wanted place in the state school. I think having a bright child is one of the few areas left where it is acceptable to discriminate. So I think it is very unjust and don't think that selective schools should be included in the process. But in our LEA it still applies I think, and there is nothing I can do. Stinks.

[Freckle]

It might be worth looking here to see if a decision has been made regarding your area. It does seem to be on an area-by-area basis rather than a blanket decision covering the whole country.

In the admissions booklet produced by Kent County Council, there is an introductory letter from the director of the LEA which includes

"This year, as a result of decisions made by the Schools Adjudicator, those schools which previously gave priority for places to applicants who had named them first on the Common Application form will no longer do so."

So perhaps the answer is to get your LEA to object to this process and to get the schools adjudicator to rule on it. Probably a bit late for this year, but could get it through for next.

[Piffle]

Hmm we had it in Lincs the year we moved up here to get ds into the grammar - luckily he sailed it but it caused riots and tears and tons of kids really lucked out school wise, appeals left right and centre, kids being bussed out to other grammars 25 miles away
TRagic.
I'm glad it's changed back in most places it was a travesty

[curlew]

Just read on another thread that the first preference first criterion is still alive and kicking in London too - so maybe it's only in Kent that it's been outlawed. Sorry if I misled anyone.....

[tresinia]

Freckle and babe 1, are you sure that this has been outlawed, can I find it anywhere on internet to prove it? Reason I ask is because my DS2 is in year 6 and we are looking at the local (good) secondary school in the Dudley area which is foundation and insisting it is put first on the common application form which is used by all the surrounding LEA's including our own. (if you don't put it first you don't get in, end of.) However I did want DS2 to take the grammar school test but that also has to be put first. I have queried this with the school themselve, the LEA, the local authorities in question, my local councillor and my MP and no-one has come up with a solution for me. What I have been told is that if you put the local secondary first (as I feel obliged to because his brother is there and I don;t know for sure if DS2 would pass the test anyway) then even if he took the grammar school test and passed, he wouldn't be offered a place there if he satisfied the admissions criteria for the local secondary (which he will because we live close and the sibling rule). They justify this by saying you have had your first choice and therefore won't be offered another place. I feel that grammar schools ought to be separate from this common application process. I have been at my wits end with this and feel there is no point at all in him taking the test. I'm not brave enough to risk the almost guaranteed place of the local school by putting the grammar schoo first, since he wants to go to the local school anyway!

[tallulah]

Knowing the school in question swedishmum that doesn't surprise me!

We decided there was no way any of ours were going there when we went to the Open Evening with our firstborn and the Head's speech was basically an anti Grammar rant. All the other schools told us about their own ethos, strengths and facilities. He told us nothing about his school, just that we were stupid if we were considering Grammar.

From what I've heard from parents of pupils I'm glad we didn't bother.

[Freckle]

In that case could you not lie and put down that you've only applied to other comps or say that this is the only school on your list?? Bit cheeky, but if they are acting unlawfully.......