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.

I am entirely willing to sacrifice a 9 or two at GCSE (or whatever i am supposed to be 'depriving' my comprehensive-educated very bright children of) to raise children who have a social conscience and consider the effect of what they do on others.

Actually I think the evidence is that the grammar cohort do slightly better in a selective system. However those not selected do worse and because there more of those children it balances out the grammar advantage. If the results were identical ( rather than just statisically similar) then people would be saying the children in the secondary moderns do just as well without the top set.

It's not your 9 though is it cake ? Maybe your aspiring medic or laywer doesn't feel the same.

Thanks hopeful, that's clearer. But - just for clarity, it's not that all those who go to grammars in selective counties outperform all those at comprehensives in non-selective counties (as would be the case if all comprehensives performed at secondary modern levels, as the previous poster stated), is it?

The aspiring musician is absolutely fine and dandy, thanks.

The aspiring architect is on target for all 9s at the moment, though statistically she is unlikely to get them all on the day, regardless of which type of school she attends...

cantkeepawayforever Right, another poster says “you” but was talking to BertrandRussell, confused me.

Why didn’t you want your children to go to a grammar school? My ILs didn’t because they say they are “full of posh gits” but DH says it’s because they (adults not children) have a chip on their shoulder about being “less than” and they think the children would end up thinking they were better than them.

They didn’t want my DH to go to university either but he ignored them and went anyway. They didn’t speak to him for years but still expected him to go back and live in the Wirral when he’d qualified and got offered a job elsewhere. They put him down all the time about his job. It really is a problem in their family, they basically keep the kids down.

I would argue that the chance is increased in a selective enviroment (be that grammar or fee paying)

Youwhat, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

"My children are already privileged - they have enough food, a warm house in a safe neighbourhood full of books, well-educated parents. While not throwing them outside onto the road to freeze while ignoring them, I don't particularly think it is morally right, or right for society as a whole, that i should actively seek to increase their privilege at the expense of others or of society as a whole."

Hopeful: both the aspiring architect and her parents are entirely willing to take that risk. Having been brought up to have a social conscience, she and her brother have a social conscience - sometimes inconvenient, but I'm reaping what I have sown!

they basically keep the kids down.

I don't think anyone has EVER said that about me.....in fact DD has just fallen around laughing at the suggestion....

I hope her place isn't taken by a privately educated young person with less of a social consience.

But they are going to university? Isn’t that too privileged also or are they applying to ones that don’t expect the best results?

“Is cantkeepawayforever the same poster as BertrandRussell?“
No.
Incidentally, I don’t “slag other parenra off” for using the system that that live with. I object very strongly when they deny that it is unfair. When they say that there is a level playing field on admissions. When they say (interestingly, they don’t much anymore) that the selective system is a beneficial motor of social change. When they deny that it is socially or psychologically damaging. When they misrepresent comprehensive schools. And when they refuse to listen when it is pointed out that grammar schools are islands of privilege.

I thought my post was quite clear cantkeepawayforever, but I will repeat it for you as you seem to have misread/misunderstood it.

It's one thing being anti selective system.

It's quite another to accuse parents who live in a selective system of not wanting their DC to mix with "plebs" or an "I'm alright Jack" attitude because they want their kids to go to the Grammar rather than the High. And incredibly hypocritical if you yourself send your DCs to Grammar.

Youwhat,

Well, DS isn't, because that's not where performing musicians train - but yes, he is going to a very highly sought-after institution in his field after a competitive audition process.

Hopeful, DD is very grateful for, and amused by, your concern. She wants to know why you have conflated comprehensive-educated with unambitious?

Regarding university, I am not opposed to selection at 17/18: this is on the basis of performance by near-adults in nationally-standard exams, in subjects studied at school (rather than rather poorly-designed tests - in terms of standardisation and discrimination - in subjects not taught at school, by 10 year olds). I believe that universities should make contextually-sensitive offers, as some already do, but would not expect DD to receive one - we are a privileged family in a nice area, why should she?

Oh, I do have some concerns that the most selective universities use additional exams that are harder for some students to be prepared for from some schools (I can see the need for / reason for such exams, but am not certain how good they are at selecting out the most able from the merely well-prepared, given the difference in preparation), and also at the possibility that interviewers show conscious or unconscious bias in respect of students who look or speak differently from themselves or who come from backgrounds alien to their understanding / experience. These are not concerns i have for my own children - very white MC - but concerns i have for the university selection process on moral / societal grounds.

I didn’t say the comprehensives were unambitious . I said my ILs think grammars are for posh kids. I don’t. I think they are for bright kids!

I simply wanted to know whether your children would be going to universities because they are also selective and one of them is going to try to get a place. That’s great!

are they applying to ones that don’t expect the best results?

Returning to this one because I'm baffled by it.

The whole tenor of my posts in this thread and others is that able DCs like my own can and do do brilliantly at comprehensives - DS's friends have offers from Oxbridge, a whole slew of RG and similar universities, and a few are off to do more niche things like music performance or art.

Can you explain why I, or my childremn, just because they attend a comprehensive should expect to go to universities which don't erxpect the best results.

I'll repeat again: they attend a comprehensive. Others claim that by doing so they are sacrificing their results [my comment 'a 9 or two' was intended to be facetious, commenting on this assumption], but IME they are not - DD MAY get 10 9s as predicted, but she may get 8 9s and 2 8s... while, again as I posted above, around 10% of each year group at the superselective grammar can't get average of 8 low A equivalents required to stay on for its 6th form. My children, and their friends, are, rightly, ambitious for their futures and are assisted in this by their school.

You may find it hard to believe .. ambitious! Able! On track for very high grades! NOT from a grammar!! Oh, the shock of it....

That both my children never did the test, went to collage and got into uni..
If your child is bright they will shine where ever they are.
I know one person who did pass, he was bright, he got good grades, but he had no common sense, he was never good at this nterviews, he ended up in low end work, and never seems to get it. .

I think they are for bright kids!

Statistically, they are for brighter-than-average children with a bias towards those from non-deprived families and without SEN.

I said my ILs think grammars are for posh kids.

Statistically, again, they are not entirely wrong - they are for more-wealthy-that-average-for-their-catchment children. Whether that genuinely means they are 'posh' is debateable - but it is just this kind of perception-based-on-a-version-of-reality that contributes to the damaging social selectiveness of the grammars.

“ I said my ILs think grammars are for posh kids. I don’t. I think they are for bright kids!“

So are the top sets of comprehensives. There were even a few top grades in the top set of ds’s secondary modern.

There might be less of an issue if grammar schools were reliably for bright kids. They are, as they stand, generally for middle class kids. The system operates against disadvantaged children, however bright they are.

Can you explain why I, or my childremn, just because they attend a comprehensive should expect to go to universities which don't erxpect the best results.

I just read that the overall proportion of state school pupils entering universities is at a record high and some, like Bristol, for example, “will make offers two grades lower than the standard offer for applicants who have been at schools in the lowest-achieving 40% for A-level results”.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-38842482

Why do you think my DC's school, just because it is a comprehensive, should fit into that lowest 40%? You are making a LOT of assumptions!

I agree that initiatives like Bristol's are the kind of thing that is very useful in acknowledging that able pupils from schools in deprived areas / with disproportionate numbers of deprived pupils might not get the same 'raw results', but have the same ability, as well-coached privileged children from schools in easier circumstances.

As I said before I believe that universities should make contextually-sensitive offers, as some already do.

I don't expect DD to get one. We are MC, white, live in a nice area, comprehensive reflects its catchment.

I didn’t make assumptions, I asked questions. You are very defensive .