Things you wished you had known about the 11 plus process

[Goposie]

For me, that the numbers applying are crazy and the sheer odds stacked against getting in.

A bad workman always blames his tools...

“A bad workman always blames his tools.”
Well, if you’ve only been given half a hammer.........

My MIL (two holidays a year, M&S food and clothes) decided that tutoring was cheating and thus persuaded her daughter, SIL (single parent, bad choices, three kids by three fathers none of them paying child support as they skipped, she smokes, has tv and cable, supported by the state and her parents who give her cash all the time, social housing) not to have a tutor for her eldest.

Friends with tutors got into the grammar, SIL’s eldest didn’t by a long way. MIL moaned about the “cheating”. Friends who got in didn’t moan about their multiple holidays.

SIL didn’t care. It meant she could spend the money MIL gave her on clothes for clubbing rather than a tutor and Christmas lights. She actually said “They might have got in to the grammar but we have better lights”.

You can buy all sorts of things. Choose wisely. And if you can’t afford it, education is free if you’re poor. Yay!

BertrandRussell I saw a guy with half a hammer building a shop front in India.

I’ve taught in “slums” overseas. People don’t know they’re born in this country, so entitled.

And even in the top private school there are divisions within one tiny class!.

Why does that child have a higher level book? Someone is tutoring after school so we all have to do it. Let’s not go away this weekend, let’s get ahead of the syllabus. They’ve hired a nanny who is an ex teacher, we need one.

This is happening in Reception.

It’s a competitive world if you want to take part. Or you could bring up your children to give back and do a couple of years teaching overseas for free and learn a lot more than money can buy.

Yy to 4Up- In answer to the OP’s original question, don’t believe the tutoring stops once they’ve passed! The wealthy parents in the obscenely wealthy (virtually no Pupil premium kids) schools continue with several different subject tutors with the cash they’ve saved on school fees. I know a family who spends £600/month on tutors! (Kids heavily tutored to get into grammar then not flourishing and needing help). That allocation of funds means they’re not making the voluntary contribution to the school despite six figure salaries and so the school, already one of the worst funded in the country as no pupil premium, ends up without any drama etc provision as no money therefore the rich parents buy that in privately too.

“The rich man in his castle
The ooor man at the gate
He made them high or lowly
And ordered their estate”

Sorry- serious again for a moment despite the bonkers turn this thread has taken. This - “already one of the worst funded in the country as no pupil premium“ is an outrageous and widely held opinion. Pupil premium is a desperate attempt to level the playing field for the most disadvantaged children. It is not there to pay for rich kid’s drama classes.

Did your children get into grammars Bertrand?

Bertrand - just to say yours is one of the few voices that keep me coming back here. Keep on keeping on, please!

Improvements to children’s learning outcomes, are, almost inevitably a result of multiple incremental advantages. School systems can and do improve but parents and the resources they put into their children’s education are always going to have a huge impact because they are more personalised to the (incremental) needs of their own child.

MariaNovella I agree. More baths, better maths.

And beyond that, you work with whichever school or community to help your child. You have to do your bit.

People used to blame the child if they failed, now they blame the system 🙄. Actually it’s the parent that should shoulder most of the blame. Do the homework, do double. Be a role model for the sort of student/person you want your children to be. Stop moaning!

“Be a role model for the sort of student/person you want your children to be. Stop moaning!”

And sod the kids who didn’t have that?

There are children whose parents cannot meet their most basic incremental needs. Some children only have state school systems to drag them upwards and onwards. That is very sad but the answer is not to discourage involved and responsible parents from investing in their chikdren’s upbringing from a misguided notion of fairness - that path only leads to one thing, dragging down the whole of society.

BertrandRussell you won’t even answer whether your kids got into a grammar school (I’m told one did and one didn’t) so fuck off with your social worker voice diversion tactics.

Pupil premium doesn’t work any way.

If you believe in not selecting at 11 years of age, you should not believe in selecting at 16 large scale hypocrisy here !

I think the reason the chattering socialists are ok selecting at 16 is a realisation , their children would not be able to access Oxbridge other wise !

Education systems have to operate as sorting systems at some point.

Sorry-missed the question. Yes, you have been told correctly.(who by, I wonder??). One did and one didn’t. Why do you want to know?

“That is very sad but the answer is not to discourage involved and responsible parents from investing in their chikdren’s upbringing from a misguided notion of fairness - that path only leads to one thing, dragging down the whole of society.”

Why is a comprehensive school with setting “dragging down the whole of society?”

And sod the kids who didn’t have that?
What? So I shouldn't help my DS with his homework or buy him books or take him on trips because not all kids have that? I'm not participating in the race to the bottom because Underprivileged Kids with Disengaged Parents.

And nor did you Bert. You had both your DC sit the 11+ and sent the one who passed to grammar.

Education systems have to operate as sorting systems at some point.

As does life. Jobs, partners, friends, sports, hobbies...

It’s just one big Tonder.

Tinder!

“Education systems have to operate as sorting systems at some point.”
Possibly. That’s why I think setting is a good idea. It allows flexible sorting-and for no sorting where sorting is not relevant.

I used to teach in a grammar area - super selective, so arguably less impact on other schools. I taught at a sec mod. Our top sets did as well as or better than their peers at the grammars. We benefited in the last few years I was there from some very bright immigrant kids joining in the sixth form - grammars wouldn’t accept them as they wouldn’t recognise their prior qualifications. More fool them. We also, every year, accepted students who left the grammar schools after GCSEs either because they were thrown out or chose to leave for other reasons. They too did well and were generally much happier with us.
Neither of my children sat the 11+, both attended the school where I taught, both achieved good degrees and are doing well in life as are most of their peers, including those who did not go to university but went straight into work/apprenticeships/whatever.
My opinion is that it is entirely possible to cater for even the brightest in a properly funded and staffed comprehensive system, and that such a system would be less socially divisive, easier to manage and more pleasant for everyone.