Selective education, Kent's 11 plus and Grammar School system

[TootingJo]

I moved to Kent unaware of the selective system and found out most of my daughter's friends had 11 plus tutors. We got her a tutor with just a few weeks to go but I feel it was too little too late and she failed the Kent test.

She judged herself a failure, saw all her best friends go to Grammar schools, and went to a school that got closed down after being put into special measures. Her latest school has just had a poor Ofsted rating and disruption in class is a real problem.

I feel that Kent's system is great for those that achieve Grammar school places, but that the quality of teaching suffers in the rest of the schools. I love that my daughter is now in a local school, her Grammar school friends have hours of travel each day while she can walk to school. But as a middle class mum who's seen 'the other side' of local education I would love to have regular comprehensive schools here. I know no education system is perfect, but this one seems to serve the bright 30% at the expense of the 70% who fail at eleven. Looking at Ofsted stats it's clear that the best teaching is in Grammar schools in this county, but surely good teaching should not be reserved for the brightest pupils?

I would love to see a referendum on the school system in Kent, to allow the people here to choose the education system. It could be that I'm a lone voice and everyone else loves it! Any thoughts?

[TootingJo]

Indantherene I agree it was stupid not to know about the 11+ I thought it had been abolished years ago. In my defence I had a newborn, it was a fast move and I was focussed on her current school not her secondary education. I also assumed the education system would look after her, and not need pushy parenting and tutors to get her to the right school.

It seems a shame that my daughter's education suffers for my mistake. But you'd hope that an education system would look after bright children who have dumb parents.

[BeaufortBelle]

When I went to a Kent grammar school in 1971 there was a fabulous mix if children. Girls whose parents were doctors, solicitors, farmers, hoteliers, bus drivers, nurses, postmen, farm labourers, carpenters, decorators, plumbers, shop workers, bank clerks, and unemployed. There was no tutoring. It was fair and diverse. The sec mods then only did CSEs so there has been an improvement since then. The children who didn't go to grammar school were generally less bright although there were always those on the borderline who felt cheated.

In many middle class families the brighter children went to grammar school; the less bright to the local indys.

My DH went to a former grammar school in Leeds in 1972. It was the first year it had a comp intake. At the end if seven years it bore no resemblance to the previously excellent school. It closed a few years after that.

Just because not all children can be in the top 25% or academic why dies that mean the brightest shouldn't have an academic education.

The issue is the tutoring and the scarcity of grammar places. They need to be brought back across the board, vocational quals and careers need to be better valued and the tutoring needs to cease ir be provided equitably at primary level.

[ASingleJourney]

Thanks, Rash. At least for selective private and grammar schools in the greater London area (ie, I am less familiar with other regions), I thought the 11+ exams were principally about identifying potential (in that case, more of an IQ test, unless I have the wrong understanding of an IQ test).

[Therein2tics]

I think comprehensive with streaming could be best system overall. Also with plenty subject choices and some "fluidity" so you can go up or down streams if you are able to.

But as a hypocrite -

I don't live near Kent but have option of either very successful (results-wise) and good ethos/pastoral small grammar school which we are in catchment for
vs
good large comprehensive with mixed ability (some in catchment area with good grades will do 11+ and travel further to the grammar school so this brings average down a bit) but overall still has some pupils with good grades. Some are out of catchment for grammar and just go.

I know this is a lucky situation to be in.

My DC prob could pass 11+ and get into the grammar. But still not sure whether to let them sit 11+ as we would then be adding to problem. In the class a few will go to grammar but most will go to comprehensive.

[RashDecision]

Not all "high schools" in Kent are decent though, Squirrel. There are pockets of Kent, like Paddock Wood, that aren't overly affected by the grammar exodus, but others, especially in the north west of the county, are a different matter altogether.

If you're a boy that fails the test in my neck of the woods, you have not a hope in hell of appeal at a grammar. One of my DSs good friends working way above NC Levels, L6 Maths in Y6 etc, top table since y1, sharp as a tack, failed. Parents can't afford to move or private, option for him not good. Makes me angry. One test, one day, one chance so say the Bond books. To decide a childs future education on one day is shit, no matter which way you cut it.

[Therein2tics]

So I'd vote for it, but when (partially) in the system still finding it hard not to "work" system for my DCs benefit. iyswim

[pigsinmud]

I grew up in Kent and went to a grammar school. This was a time of no tutors. My 2 older brothers went to the comprehensive - except of course it's not is it? I quite enjoyed my school life, but now look back at the system with horror. I'm pleased I now live in a place with no selective tests.

I often wonder what would happen if the system was flipped. Everyone sat a test and those who scored lowest were taught at different schools - schools which supported and encouraged those who were struggling rather than hand out special teaching to those who find it easier in the first place.

Personally, I'm not in favour at all. Just had friends to stay for the weekend and they are gearing up for 11+. There's a tutor for this and another for that. He has to pass because the alternative, apparently, is unbearable to even contemplate. It's sad.

[SquirrelChaser]

I appreciate that not all high schools are great, but plenty are. I don't see that crap high schools will improve with the removal of grammar schools. Surely people should be campaigning to ensure all high schools are good rather than try to remove the grammars which are providing the sort of education that every child should be able to access. That smacks of the politics of envy.

[RashDecision]

I often wonder what would happen if the system was flipped. Everyone sat a test and those who scored lowest were taught at different schools - schools which supported and encouraged those who were struggling rather than hand out special teaching to those who find it easier in the first place.

Now that is a great idea.

[Callmecordelia]

Schilke, I agree. I went to Grammar school in Kent, and now look at the system with a more critical eye. Unfortunately I live in Kent with a 4 year old DD. I do not want her junior school years to include a tutor, and be pressured. I'd like it to be how it was in the 80s, when I did a test, had an extra playtime and got into grammar school. I was completely unaware of the process or the stakes, and no one had a tutor.

[Thymeout]

There's also the issue of coaching for the test. It's a massive industry and beyond the budget of many ordinary families. The grammar schools themselves are concerned about it because it leads to brighter pupils missing out and over-coached pupils struggling.

There is no reason at all why all abilities can't be educated successfully under the same roof. All the comprehensives I know of set by ability, sometimes from the start of Yr 7. Pupils move up and down between sets and late developers often overtake the early high-flyers.

[Thymeout]

Sorry X-post with many re coaching.

[RashDecision]

From what I have seen the new Kent test is far from tutor proof. It is undoubtedly better than what was before which was 100% coachable, VR laughably so, at least now with the English any tutoring is at least relevant to the national curriculum.

In terms of cost, many pupils in the superselectives in Kent attended private primary, which teach 11+ in the classroom, which state is forbidden from doing. Which is madness, when the idea is that grammar should be available to all. Of course there are a few who have had no input save a very involved knowledgeable parent who has sat with them and done a couple of practice papers. In fact, if you believed everything you read on MN then all the top scorers would be kids who had only ever seen one practice paper and didn't "need" a tutor. In reality, lots of people pay for a tutor once a week in Y5 or do the equivalent practice with their kids themselves in the year leading up. So that the playing field is levelled somewhat with the private kids.

It's all utter bollocks.

[Clavinova]

Kent borders East Sussex which is fully comprehensive but many of the comprehensive schools in East Sussex are no better than the secondary moderns in Kent. In fact most of the modern schools in Kent are actually rated 'good' or better; if you've moved into the catchment of a poorly performing modern school by chance then you would just as likely have moved into the catchment of a poorly performing comprehensive school, especially around the coast.
I think you are being naïve op - 'middle class mums' are generally not looking to send their dc to 'regular comprehensive' schools; not with free school meal rates of 15-20% or more. If grammar schools were not available in Kent, 'middle class mums' would be looking to move into the catchment of 'high performing' comprehensives (or applying to faith schools as the best performing comprehensive school in East Sussex is a Catholic school) with low fsm rates and probably not in the same catchment area as you've found yourself in but half a mile up the road in the 'right' catchment. This is exactly what happens in Surrey and Hampshire as well.

[sunshield]

I live in Bucks and have two DDs at grammar and a DS at a upper school (high) . The system is similar to Kent's but I think the 'modern' schools are generally better. However, i have experience of Kent's system via my sisters two DDs and the 'crazy' at all cost West Kent coaching that goes in.

I would like to say though that despite both girls passing, elder one to Tonbridge (yr12) IB younger one Weald (yr9) sister was very enthused about Hillview school for girls. DD2 could not make her mind up whether to go to grammar or Hillview , in the end the only reason they choose Weald was because it would be easier to change from grammar.

It is quite possible she could go to Hillview for sixth form as the outstanding film 'studio' set up there is something she would love to do.

The point is even in Kent there are some good non selective schools that offer different and in Hilview's case excellent opportunities.

[RashDecision]

sunshield - girls are much better catered for, in both number of grammar places and non selective school choices, than boys in West/NW Kent.

[TootingJo]

I get your point Clarinova, I know the comprehensive system is flawed by people moving to catchment areas. But I don't think the flaws of that alternative make this method right.

It just seems a stark comparison that the local secondary moderns are generally bad here. When I last looked this was the difference.

33 state Grammar schools: 21 Outstanding, 11 Good, 1 Requires Improvement.

64 Secondary Moderns: 9 Outstanding, 29 Good and 26 get Ofsted 3 or 4.

So much depends on that exam at 11. It's a harsh label for a child to be 'academic' or 'not academic,' and the academic types do seem to have better options for schools.

There's even stats about summer born children being under represented in the Grammars. I know my daughter will do ok, I just hope she won't get a chip on her shoulder that she 'failed' especially when her brother is tutored to be a 'success.'

[Indantherene]

I think the fact that people are arguing about the differences between 'the kind of people who fail' and the people who pass shows the unpleasantness of the whole system.

I don't think anybody said that at all. There are 3 sorts of children in Kent; the majority who do not sit the Kent Test. These children have not failed because they didn't take the test. The minority who do take the test, of whom some pass and some fail.

The parents who seem to get the most agitated and demand an end to the system are this third group, those who took it and failed. 'The kind of people they are' is sore losers.

As someone else said, to say that the high schools are bad so we should close the grammars is nonsense.

[RashDecision]

Is it really the majority that don't sit it in Kent? Certainly not at our school, the vast majority do sit it, and usually about 30% pass.

I will see if I can get some figures.

[Indantherene]

A point in your OP was the quality of teaching suffers in the rest of the schools. That I would take issue with. It can actually be the exact opposite. As far as stats are concerned, of course the grammars are going to get the highest GCSE passes. Something would be wrong if they didn't. But that doesn't mean the teaching is "better". It means the level of the children's attainment is higher when they come into the school.

I don't know which bit of Kent you are in but we were in East Kent. I worked as a TA in the very worst high school in our town. The behaviour of some of the kids was awful. But we had some of the very best teachers you could want. They were inspiring and worked really hard and the kids responded to those fabulous teachers.

In a grammar, teaching is probably easier with less crowd control involved. It would be quite easy to be a poor teacher in a grammar and still get good results.

[Indantherene]

Rash x posts. Depends which bit you are in and my kids went through the system a long time ago. My DD was one of only 6 in her year group to take the test. Better primaries were putting through probably 1/3 of the class.

[RashDecision]

2014 = 13372 children in Kent primaries, 8204 took test

61% took test

[RashDecision]

That should say for admission in 2014, so sat in 2013.

3565 passed, or 26% inc HT appeals

[Indantherene]

Where did you find that? The system in West Kent skews the figures because they have more people trying to get into the superselectives.

Any idea what the numbers were solely for East Kent? (Ashford, Canterbury, Dover & Folkestone)

[RashDecision]

It was a FOI on the kentadvice website. Don't know the split between West & East Kent. It Diesnt include the vast numbers of out of county children who take loads of West Kent places.