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.

Good point by Bertrand - again, where are the 75% plus from grammar school areas, arguing passionately that their child's secondary modern has been brilliant and they wouldn't exchange it for a comprehensive, because the bipartite system is SO much better for all children of all abilities.....?

It's difficult to know how to describe the 'other' schools in grammar areas.

They obviously aren't comprehensives, because their intakes do not reflect the full distribution of ability of children who live in their catchment - and the confusion created with true comprehensives elsewhere in the country is often a characteristic of debates such as this thread.

By conflating the two 'types' of school - 'other schools in grammar areas' and 'true comprehensives', much confusion arises, such as those who believe that in true comprehensives all children get results that are lower than all pupils at all grammars.

But I agree that using the term 'secondary modern', with the connotations that has, could be seen to be pejorative, though it is accurate - the school within the bipartite system for those who do not pass the 11+.

How could we best refer to them? 'High school' doesn't work - some grammars call themselves High Schools elsewhere in the country, so that is even more likely to cause confusion!

I don’t recognise your idea of trail blazing Cant or the reasons you think parents choose grammars when they have your amazing comp to choose from. Were certainly not my reasons for choosing the grammars. I based my choice on visits; the preferable learning atmosphere, Ofsted reports, progress, behaviour, answers to questions I asked and provision in the areas we were interested in. The grammars ticked all the boxes, the comp didn’t for us. I suspect an awful lot of parents do the same judging by the open day attendance and questions being asked, reports being discussed etc.

“ People like us” sounds a little arrogant. The fact is sensible parents aren’t going to base choices on what other people do however superior the other people think they are. They need to do their own research and make a choice that is best for their child and experience not yours.

High School is used in places other than Kent to describe schools that used to be Secondary Moderns.

Secondary Modern is not an accurate description of a contemporary secondary school. For one thing, Secondary Moderns went up to 16 and not beyond and equipped pupils with CSEs. The standard of education and the ambitions for pupils were much lower than in contemporary high schools.

The correct name for non selective schools in a grammar area used to be “restricted range comprehensives”. In fact for some time Ofsted used to base comparisons on similar schools, recognising that it was unfair to directly compare such schools on grammars in terms of raw results.
I taught at a school where many parents did indeed not bother to enter their children for the 11+. Reasons for this were varied, and included, among others:

Parents objected to selective education on political/moral grounds
Parents realised that the marginal advantage of attending a grammar school wasn’t worth the endless hassle of 11+ preparation
Parents didn’t rate the teaching at the grammar schools, which verged on the complacent in some subjects
Parents didn’t want their clever, talented child to be considered dim because not quite Oxbridge material
Parents wanted the advantage of a big school with a range of opportunities including wide social interaction
Parents valued the SEN and other support systems at the non selective school
Parents recoiled at the social snobbery associated with the grammar schools, which was rife among certain parents and teachers (and consequently, sadly, among students)
Children didn’t fancy single sex education
Children preferred to be at school with their friends
Children had wider aspirations than a focus on university education

As I say, I taught in such a school and sent my children there (for a selection of the reasons above). They do exist. And my children, and many others, did as well as or better than their peers at the grammar schools.

"Restricted range comprehensive" sounds like a really useful term, thanks born.

So e.g. Kent has 'restricted range comprehensives', whereas e.g. Oxfordshire or Scotland just have 'comprehensives'? That works for me as a distinction; thanks.

I also absolutely recognise your 'list of reasons' ... the 'snobbery' one strikes a particular chord, and the 'verging on complacent' teaching another [I would clarify to say that the latter in particular wasn't 'why I chose non-grammar at 11+; it was something I became aware of through a long-term training course connected with my work, which involved direct observation of teachers in a grammar school]

.”Restricted range comprehensive” is an oxymoron

It was, however, the term that was used and meant that unfair comparisons weren’t made.

I do realise that a non selective school in a superselective area is a very different beast from one in a fully selective area. Losing 5% - 10% of the most academically able is manageable, if the school is big enough. There are enough able students for one or two top sets on each side of the school. Losing 20% - 25% is a disaster, and vastly restricts the opportunities for the non selective.

For the children at the non selective

I think complacent teaching can be found anywhere if a school isn’t managed properly.

I do think you’re right though re some parents rejecting grammars because they want their dc to be a big fish in a little pond. I’ve heard that exact phrase used. They want lower sets to boost their top set dc’s esteem which I think is pretty unpleasant. I wanted reality for my dc not complacency ie they’re just one of many other bright dc, nothing special and need to work hard to function in an ever competing world.

Clearly going by several posts an here grammar alternatives (comps and restricted range comps) both offer excellent alternatives parents are happy with. The vitriol towards grammars is thus ridiculous.Parents need to big up the alternatives and not slate them. We certainly did even though we knew we wouldn’t be picking them. Bigging up going with friends, closer etc. They felt very little pressure on the day as were happy with either option even though we wouldn’t have been. We did the research but didn’t voice all our concerns to our dc.

Complacent teaching can be found in all levels of education too.

There are not many bigging up the restrictive range comps. It's not an option many, if any would choose over a grammar or comp. It's not something I would choose. My DS needs tops sets and lower sets which you can only get in a comp. Luckily I live in a comp area.

I’m not bigging up anything. I gave the reasons why some might not choose to go to a grammar school where one was available. I’ve made it clear in previous posts that I support a fully funded and well managed comprehensive system. But anyone who lives in a selective area, be it fully or partially selective, has to make decisions. In my area, the decision not to take the 11+ was one taken by many, for sensible reasons, and which achieved good outcomes.

There are not many bigging up the restrictive range comps. It's not an option many, if any would choose over a grammar or comp.

I think that people actively choosing “restrictive range comprehensives” are not on MN. There most definitely are families who move out of London suburbs with very diverse comprehensives to areas of Kent with leafy white “restrictive range comprehensives”. This is possibly motivated by deep seated conservativism/racism... but it does exist.

Complacent teaching shouldn’t happen anywhere, but that it does is not a reason for tolerating it in a grammar school (of all places).

BTW the term restricted range comprehensive is no longer used - I used the past tense in my post upthread - probably because, as Bertrand pointed out, it’s an oxymoron. It was useful as a distinction for Ofsted when comparing schools like for like, especially with regard to results. The main driver of results, as any fuel kno, is a school’s intake - which is why grammars are always going to do better, though some still don’t seem to understand this.

Fule!

Or a comp and IF it is there. Was on my list of things to check on. Read the reports, look at progress data, speak to parents......

Clearly you don’t Green. Grammars are so crap and complacent they don’t get students into 6th form of grammars whist the alternatives do.

“I think that people actively choosing “restrictive range comprehensives” are not on MN.“

I think there are very few people who actively choose the 75% restricted range comprehensives. I know plenty who have “chosen” because they know their child has no chance of passing the test. I also know a couple who chose our local one because of vocational courses and because of the specific SEN provision. Both of these have gone by the wayside because of funding cuts.

N0rdic is that anecdotal or do you have data to show that most Grammar 6th forms are full of high school students? Definitely not the case here.

The main driver of results, as any fule kno, is a school’s intake

Indeed. We know it but we need to be reminded of it as this fact often gets drowned out in the perfectly laudable conversation about how to improve educational outcomes for the less fortunate.

Let’s be honest. People whose children pass the entrance will support grammars and faith schools because they offer a type of selective private schooling but for free. I’m not ashamed to admit that I chose an academically private school for my child to give them the best chance of an education not disrupted by the badly behaved as mine was in a ‘true’ comp where the feral ruled.

We live in an area where there are no grammars and 3 large private + 2 large faith schools take a lot of children who would be top set. Our 2 comps are affected by people with the means to do so opting to go elsewhere. But they’re not undersubscribed- so if all the kids were pulled from the privates there would need to be a few new schools built and staffed. And people would still find a way to access the better ones.

People don’t want their kids to be schooled alongside kids who are badly behaved and that’s the crux of it.

BertrandRussell - surely moving to a small Kent town from a London suburb counts as “choosing” a High School? Obviously once you have bought your house your choice is already made.