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 can't answer for you cantkeepawayforever, visit the schools and try for the one you think is the best fit. My DS has SEN. He is in the top set for maths and looks like he might be moved to lower set English in his grammar school.

You answered your question yourself Can’t as regards sec modern and comps who you say are far superior.

Re grammars I suspect the Senco would provide the support needed just like any other Senco and they do set.There are several dyspraxic,as kids on the spectrum at ours and the provision is good ime.

Also from my experience of the reasoning papers in the maths Sats and the GCSE a fair amount of ability at reading comp is needed. Yes you are allowed a reader in some cases but they aren’t allowed to explain meaning in text or help with anything.

Would also like to say the PP anti grammar thing is a red herring imvho and it doesn’t work across the board.

It can be a crude measure,you can even have families with some children on it and some off.

Aside from that It isn’t working. 50% of children on PP won’t get the expected levels in GCSE maths and Eng. They are 9 months behind their peers by the end of primary often after having a huge amount of interventions and having been made a priority for years. It will take 100 years to sort and is happening everywhere. Ie continuously focusing on the minuscule numbers of schools which are grammar is ridiculous.

The reason not enough pp kids are in grammars is because quite often they are far behind by the end of primary. A child 9 months behind will not get expected levels at Sats let alone pass the 11+. Look at the numbers in top sets at comps. Clearly given that 50% of disadvantaged kids are leaving schools without the required levels in Eng and Maths let alone top grades illustrates they’re not in your top sets in comps either.

Insisting pp kids should be in grammars regardless without insisting equal numbers (ie the full national percentage) should be in top sets at comps is ridiculous.

Frankly I think so many poorer children leaving schools not literate or numerate enough is a national disgrace and we should all be focusing on that. I’d like to see all children achieving what they should. Disadvantaged kids who are capable of getting into grammars have been shot in the foot long before they sit the 11+. Getting these kids into grammars although preferable and something that should be continuously strived for is not the priority imvho. Ensuring all abilities everywhere from nursery to 16 are where they should be is.

Frankly I think so many poorer children leaving schools not literate or numerate enough is a national disgrace and we should all be focusing on that.

One cannot but agree with this. However, the foundations for literacy are laid in the home and much more needs to be done to ensure children’s language development is properly supported in their families. Absolutely nothing replaces the language input of parents/siblings.

I can't answer for you cantkeepawayforever

In other words, the IS no answer for such children in the biartitie system - which was the point i was making.

In each school, the set and teaching that the child needs for one of their subjects simply isn't in the school. only in a true comprehensive can their needs be met.

Lots of children have uneven ability profiles, yet grammar supporters suggest there are two clear (and clearly distinct) groups: 'bright' and 'not bright', who are perfectly divided into the two available types of school by a perfectly accurate test at 11+.... a test which is, obviously (to them) income and background blind (or insofar as it depends on background, that is 'right', because adequately bright children from relatively wealthy families are clearly more deserving, as poor parents have 'less bright' children) and the 11+, being the perfect test of ability (not coaching, not background) that it is, will ALWAYS identify the able children from poorer backgrounds (who will not in the least be deterred by uniform costs, transport costs, snobbery, perceived 'poshness' of the grammar school etc etc).

cantkeepawayforever - you are absolutely right that the barriers to getting an appropriate education for clever but disadvantaged children are not magically removed by a bipartite secondary school system, as was fondly imagined by (some) proponents of grammar schools a long time ago in an age where ideology rather than facts dominated the design of school systems.

Unfortunately, the barriers to getting an appropriate education for clever but disadvantaged children are not magically removed by a comprehensive school system either.

“Unfortunately, the barriers to getting an appropriate education for clever but disadvantaged children are not magically removed by a comprehensive school system either.”

No. But they are entrenched and legitimised by the selective system.

However, the bipartite system raises ADDITIONAL barriers, not only to these children but ALSO to children with uneven profiles.

It is (as the results data clearly shows) ALSO disadvantageous to those children of middle ability - those children who do really well in the middle sets of comprehensives 9and may well move up sets as they develop in specific subjects) but, sent to non-grammars at 11 by the 11+, fare less well. Let's not forget that a child on the 74th centile is not 'of low ability', by any stretch of the definition, but is sent to a school that is regarded as 'second class' and 'specifically for those who fail the 11+'.

They are also entrenched and legitimized by the comprehensive system. The facts are that both these systems are not doing anything at all to help clever but disadvantaged children to escape their backgrounds in the absence of significant parental investment in education. The issue is how to reach children whose parents are unable/unwilling to support them. School systems are instruments that are too blunt to achieve this in any meaningful way and we need, as a society, to move on from conversations about systems towards a conversation about identifying individuals and giving them targeted support.

Let's not forget that a child on the 74th centile is not of low ability.

This is true. However, a child on the 74th centile has a far larger peer group than a child on the 99th centile.

Barriers for the disadvantaged and clever are not entrenched systematically by the comprehensive system, which is specifically designed to lower them. They may be by individual schools, but that’s the fault of those schools. Barriers are entrenched societally through prejudice and lack of investment in education, especially in those schools that could make a real difference.
FWIW there’s a current thread on primary schools shutting on Friday afternoons due to budget cuts.

borntobequiet - you are right according to ideology, but unfortunately decades of data demonstrate that the is really very weak!

That the ideology is...

However, a child on the 74th centile has a far larger peer group

Why is the child on the 75th centile so different from the child on the 74th as to need a different school - on in which they can rise through sets to work with the child who measured at the 99th centile at 11 in their subjects of strength, while the child on the 74th centile is utterly denied that opportunity?

GSs do not select on the basis of IQ.

It’s also important to remember the psychological impact on individuals and on society. The selective system is saying that it is OK to perpetuate and legitimise inequality. The comprehensive system is saying that we think it’s important to try to fix the inequality.

Inequality cannot be “fixed”, only addressed and mitigated.

cantkeepawayforever

Is the child on the 74th Centile not the top of the school she/he attends though? Surely the school teaches the same curriculum as the Grammar and the 74th Centile child can achieve a 9 if capable exactly the same as the child who attends the Grammar School?

If you think that, Trinty-what’s the point of having a grammar school?

Surely the school teaches the same curriculum as the Grammar

Triple Sciences for able scientists / several languages for able linguists?

Further Maths for able mathematicians?

Are you sure? As Bert says, if the curriculum is identical in both schools, why is everyone insistent that two schools are needed? You could, I don't know, merge them and call them a comprehensive....

Because I think all DC need schools which suit them, if you are really lucky you get your child into a school which does. My DD went to a lovely Primary but came up against all the ‘oh you think you are so clever rubbish’ that other DC spout. She felt she never really fitted in at Primary at Secondary she does. She spends all her lunchtimes and breaks doing clubs for competitions. This is offered at the Grammar School not at the Comp. I don’t know why?

I know if DS has gone to the Grammar School he would have hated the pace and pressure. The Comp suited him. He would however have loved the clubs. I don’t know why they aren’t offered at the Comp. They have a high number of clever DC, who get good results each year.

As I said before children all have different needs. Our Comp only let’s top set take triple Science is that fair? What about the lower set child that may want to do triple?

At our local Comp there are GCSEs offered in food tech, pe, textiles, dance, childcare, electronics and tech. These are not offered at the Grammar School but all the other GCSEs ie, triple Science, languages etc are the same.

So if you send your DC to Grammar you know you don’t have these choices. If you send your DCto Comp you have the same choices as the Grammar plus extras.

So you choose (if your child takes the 11 plus and passes) the school which you think will suit them best.

But not all grammar schools do lots of clubs and some comprehensives/restricted range comprehensives do loads. That’s not an argument for selection. It’s an argument for clubs.

“So if you send your DC to Grammar you know you don’t have these choices”

So why not send your child to the school that offers more options?

If the comprehensive offers all the same academic choices plus all those extra things, it’s a no brainer, surely?

No it’s not an argument for selection, before DD went I didn’t know they did clubs. I just don’t understand why they don’t do them at the comp.

My argument for selection has always been the same. The same schools do not suit everyone.

My DD is rediculously interested in learning, she loves school, hates kids who mess around and disrupt lessons. She has more DC like her in the Grammar School and she is really enjoying it.

My DS was much more laid back and fitted in perfectly at the Comp.

I could have quite happily sent her to the Comp. I expect she would have quite liked it. She would have been with her Primary friends as well as the annoying people (her words), but she is really happy at the Grammar with lots more DC like her.

Yes if al those DC like her were in a Comp then it may have suited her better.

However our local Comp also prides itself now, (not when my DS went) for only setting for Maths in the first three years, only at GCSE are they set properly. My DD had had enough at Primary School of being used to help settle the DC who misbehave by sitting them next to her to keep them away from friends and for her to help them with their work.