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.

The real question for people who support selection at eleven is this: if your child doesn’t pass the 11+ are you just as happy for them to attend the secondary modern? Or will you try to buy your way out of the system?

Superselectives do still have an impact on the local schools. Our local non grammar options are abysmal, there’s only one I’d consider in the whole city. Even though we’re not at all middle class we chose to pay for our child to be tutored for the test albeit in a minimal way. I’m certain that lots of my child’s peers are well able to pass the 11+ but the will to sit the test just isn’t there either from children or parents - and that is the same issue that makes the local comps a poor fit for some children who happen to be academic. Rightly or wrongly, for many here it just isn’t desirable to be seen to be working hard or to want to do well (ie getting ideas above ones station. More common than lots of middle class people want to believe.)

I’d prefer no grammars at all and for schools to have the resources for behaviour etc to be addressed properly, for children to be able to see how different jobs work that they might not have come across before, and to have the option for decent trade apprenticeships rather than being forced to sit a raft of exams they won’t need.
Of course that still leaves selection via wealth in the form of house purchase (see previous posts on this thread re: Balcarras for a striking example of this.)

“But to put those DC in a ghetto - no. They need to be in a school with a healthy social mix and not feel different.”

Best anti selection argument I’ve ever heard.

Bertrand you've obviously ignored the other line about academic ability being a great leveller - which is a powerful argument for.

The problem with all your comments about selection Bertrand are that they're based on the Kent model, which is a terrible model.

“The real question for people who support selection at eleven is this: if your child doesn’t pass the 11+ are you just as happy for them to attend the secondary modern? Or will you try to buy your way out of the system?”

I couldn’t possibly afford to buy my DC’s way out of the system. But as I said before in our area there are many many good Comps and one Grammar. I would have been quite happy for my DD to go to the Comp that her brother went to, if she hadn’t passed the test. I am however lucky that we live in an area where it was a real choice. Do we choose the Comp with the easier journey and all the friends from Primary, or do we choose the Grammar which we knew would be stricter and more homework etc, but full of new (hopefully) friends and more ethnically diverse than the local Comp.

In the full Grammar area I grew up in, there were two Granmars (and still are) and 3 Comps. Only one school was really terrible the other one was ok and the other Faith School was the one everyone tried to get their DC into. So in that area one fifth of DC were in a terrible school, (which was because of the deprived area, more than the Grammar Schools), four fifths were ok. Hopefully some of the DC from
The deprived area got into the Grammar School then.

Well I don’t support selection at 11, rather I live in an area that has it so have no choice but to navigate it as best as I can for my children. There’s no way we could buy our way out of it whether that would be private school or a house somewhere ‘leafy.’

Thing is heartshaped, I’m in that position too. I’m vehemently opposed to selection at 11, but living in darkest East Kent my dc have to attend a selective school, whether the 25% grammar, or the 75% high school (actually a secondary modern). It just irritates me when people are so terribly in favour of grammar schools, and don’t acknowledge the majority of children who don’t attend them.

People who don’t live in wholly selective areas don’t understand ( to be fair, they can’t) the horrible divisive nature of it. They say things like “a child will only feel a failure if their parents make them feel failures” To which I say “You just spend allocation day in a primary school year 6, or in a small town where everyone knows everyone else’s business, or in the uniform shop then get back to me on that”

I remember walking with dc1 to school the morning after the results came out, and other children shouting across the road at her to ask if she’d passed.

Dc3 said it wasn’t failing she minded (our town happens to have a good high school), but rather the people who would have commented on her not passing.

It really is that big a deal in Kent no matter how much parents may try to play it down.

They need to be in a school with a healthy social mix and not feel different.

Excellent - so no need whatever for a grammar school. Why should someone on the 74th centile feel 'different' from those who are on the 75th centile (in terms of 11+ results), so 'different' that they have to go to a wholly separate school?

Why should a child on the 80th centile be separated socially from all those on the 50th centile?

Why should those in the upper centiles be separated from the vast majority of those who are from deprived backgrounds or have SEN?

I absolutely agree - put all children in true comprehensive schools EXCEPT those who have such acute special needs that their specialist needs are sufficient to require special schools - and even these should be co-located with comprehensives so that the children at both an share facilities wherever possible.

“They need to be in a school with a healthy social mix and not feel different.”

Grammar schools, even the superselectives, do not have a “healthy social mix”

Doesn't anyone else get thoroughly tired of individualised stories on threads like these: well my DC did this etc etc and that was the right choice for them, so there!! It is so missing the point . . . I'm as willing as anyone to divulge personal information about my DC as illustration, but on its own it proves precisely nothing. . . The whole issue of selective (or socially segregated) education needs us to take an expansive, rather than a "well, me and my family . . " approach.
It makes no sense either to say like a pp that "comprehensives" suit some kids but not others". The whole point of comprehensives is that they aim to suit every need and nowadays are Ofsted-assessed on their capacity to do just that.
They aim to encourage in every child a sense of belonging to the whole community, not to just to a select part of it.
Yes it's a very tall order - to stretch the most able as well as any grammar school, AND support the most challenged every step of the way; keeping every single type of child engaged and encouraged - but that's why when a school pulls it off I think it's fantastic . . . It generates an extra bonus that is bigger than the sum of its parts for everybody in contact with it; it says to them every day; look kids, this system works! We really can all get along, learn from each other's differences, and thrive!

“Doesn't anyone else get thoroughly tired of individualised stories on threads like these:“
Yes. But selection at 10 is only defensible in terms of individuals. I don’t think anyone can defend it on a societal level.

How can one tire of individual stories? Without individual human stories, conversations about the outcomes of systems are almost meaningless.

Bertrand leafy comps in affluent areas don't have a healthy social mix. And comps in seriously economically deprived areas on the 'wrong' side of large towns don't have a healthy social mix. A school with no catchment which selects on ability has far more chance of a mix than many.many comps (which aren't true comps, by definition, because of their catchment).

Goodbye,

i think it is a little disingenuous to say that a comp isn't a comp because it accurately reflects the social mix of its catchment.

You are right to say that comps are different because they sit in different catchments - and I believe that not only should the metrics used to compare them fully reflect this, but also that active measures should be taken to reduce the differences 9hence my often-repeated suggestion about having different 'effective catchments' for PP and SEN pupils to ensure fair distribution of those pupils in all schools (and if further definitions of socioeconomic challenge are created, fair distribution of those too).

however, the point i made upthread and will make again here is that, in a partically selective couynty (Gloucestershire), NO comp, even the one that seems to be regarded by a local posting on here as being the most highly selective by house price, has a percentage of deprived children as low as that of ANY of the grammars.

So it depends what you mean by 'far more chance of a mix'. The mix available in ALL grammars serving a county has a smaller proportion of children from deprived backgrounds than ANY of the comprehensives, regardless of how mixed they are in other ways (the same would be true for SEN).

The mix available in ALL grammars serving a county has a smaller proportion of children from deprived backgrounds than ANY of the comprehensives.

The correct way to address this is not to reengineer the student body. The correct way to address this is to reduce social and economic deprivation.

You’ve checked and compared the intake of every comp that has lost minuscule amounts of children to grammars that have no catchment and cover a huge area?

And top sets in comps don’t have a healthy mix, the north south divide, London v the rest of the uk not great either.

Selection at 10 is also happening everywhere via Sats.

Can’t and Bertrand you need your own thread. You’re obsessed with s teeny amount of children. There is a far, far bigger picture out there but you’re just not interested.

“There is a far, far bigger picture out there but you’re just not interested.”

But this is a thread specifically about selection at 10. I can and do go on about the iniquity of faith schools and the problems with the admission system generally on other threads. The problem is that they are generally only brought up by grammar supported on threads like this as a distraction technique “You don’t like selection at 10? Look at that other thing over there-why aren’t you talking about that instead??”

Interesting discussion despite certain posters clearly hijacking the op’s thread.

The Kent style grammar system does seem problematic.

Selection at 11 in comprehensives is pretty common via setting. This is a more flexible approach which statistically leads to better overall outcomes. The 25 percent of pupils who would have been in a separate grammar have a similar experience being hived off into the upper sets of good comps which is why outcomes are nearly identical.

Most parents only care about how good a school is for their child. Good comprehensives have a huge housing price premium attached to them and are disproportionately used be the better off.

Any poster whose children go to a good comp who suggest they are making a moral sacrifice for other people is deluded and grandstanding. A sacrifice would be actively choosing to send your child to a failing school as a first choice so that you could get involved and turn it around.

However no one intentionally chooses a failing school because it goes against every aspect of human nature. Turning what should be a policy debate into one about personal morality of parents is completely spurious. Within an unfair system people aim to do what they can and not participating doesn’t make the system any fairer- only true political change can do that.

And what is unfair about the education system isn’t primarily what’s happening in Kent- it’s unequal access to good schools (mostly primary schools and comps) based on wealth. The gaps between the best and worst state schools is significantly more stark that the gap between the best state schools and grammar / independent schools.

The best way to tackle educational equality is to ensure that all comps are very good and the best way to improve outcomes for deprived pupils is ensuring they don’t fall behind before secondary school.

The DfE has shifted its emphasis to progress metrics rather than raw results, broken down by demographics which is more helpful way to assess schools. Ofsted holds schools accountable for progress for disadvantaged pupils and where I live there are a number of schools in which deprived pupils achieve above the national average. Increased access for disadvantaged pupils to high quality preschool is also essential which is why government access for this group has increased though more should be done.

The point is primary school interventions are a much more effective route to improving outcomes for the poor than anything that can be done at secondary school level.

Last point- super selectives are important and not just for the poor. The top 1-2 percent in cognitive ability have a learning style a pace significantly different to the general top set but occur too rarely to be their own stream in most comps. While some within this group will be fine, the risk of significant under performance for a number or reasons is elevated without access to a super selective environments. Specialist environments are needed for far outliers on both end of the spectrum and for non-academic talents. Often time super selectives take too 5-10 percent to achieve functional scale within a reasonable geographical region and then institute setting within that already narrow range.

My two cents...

The DfE has shifted its emphasis to progress metrics rather than raw results, broken down by demographics which is more helpful way to assess schools.

This looked like a great idea but unfortunately “measuring progress” of children in schools is not the precise science that the engineering and management consultant mindset behind the idea anticipated. In fact, it’s mostly useless.

I can believe it’s more of an issue in Kent, yes.

Excellent posts Londongirl.

I’d happily see the end of faith schools and catchment areas if grammars go. Let’s have selection via lottery within city limits with a proportion of PP, SEN etc children for a true comprehensive intake reflective of towns as a whole. Would cost the council in terms of transport and I doubt there’s be funding for it, and I’d bet on those who could afford to, going private instead of getting involved with the school to change the system.

Can’t, the reason our superselectives don’t have a high proportion of PP/SEN is because they are open to any child living anywhere. A large percentage come from private primaries, kids are taxied in from as far as Swindon and Bristol. Gloucester is often seen as little more than Cheltenham’s slum, but those same people are happy to send their kids to our grammars.