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.

^ one of the reasons, not the reason.
One of the schools is consulting on a change to have their entry criteria altered to give priority to local postcodes.

“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.”

Yes, it did show that Grammar schools don’t add much extra value, ddn’t It? Don’t worry, now that getting a child from an 8 to a 9 apparently adds more value than getting one from a 4 to a 5 I’m sure the natural order will be restored!

@BertrandRussell

I have looked at the Gov Stats (they have changed them), for our Comp and our Grammar. The Disadvantaged DC were 25 out of 184 in Comp and 6 out of 118 in Grammar. So yes the Comp has more disadvantaged DC but it isn't in the 40% camp like the schools near you.

I also looked at high prior attainment at the Comp, 81% get 5 GCSE's at 5 and above, that is a bit sad for the DC who did not achieve what they should have. Middle attainment is only 16%. Grammar is 100% all high prior attainment obviously.

Also how is a disadvantaged DC measured? There could be more than those numbers in both schools who aren't being measured as disadvantaged, if their parents don't claim FSM etc, or don't even know they are entitled to claim it.

I agree the progress measure is flawed Maria.

Bertrand it's supremely easy logic: if a pupil comes in at the point of entry with high prior attainment which matches up to an A/ A* at GCSE - as is the case for grammars - then there's not much headroom for progress, is there, on a mathematical level?

Tinty FSM is a flawed measure too. There are plenty of DC at our grammar whose family income sits just above the FSM cut off. Parents are unlikely not to know how to claim FSM given the emphasis put on it by schools, but our school recognises the problem of disadvantage not included in the statistics Bertrand loves to quote, hence a bursary fund for those same pupils to cover school trips, educational materials etc etc. There are far more inclusive ways of measuring disadvantage and those ways are the tool being used much more widely to target disadvantaged primary school DC who have the potential to benefit from a grammar education (this is the critical thing - access, but financial help for existing pupils is a good thing too).

I suspect Bertrand might be less viciously opposed to selection if she took the trouble to inform herself of the things being done to address the obvious problems of access, which is the single most important issue dominating grammar school policy at the moment, I'd say. I just don't get the sense that she's hugely informed.

Hearts - The Sutton Trust recommends what you describe and I agree it’s the only truly fair allocation system. It would tap into human nature to facilitate educational improvements rather that work against human nature because all parents would be equally invested in ensuring all schools were high performing and would support public policies that led to better outcomes.

However, I think Brighton tried it and parents hated the lack of choice and uncertainty. Politically it would be challenging to roll out. In London a number of the oversubscribed high performing secondaries have adopted this approach though.

Parents are unlikely not to know how to claim FSM given the emphasis put on it by schools. My DD and DS's schools have never said anything to me about FSM. At one point my family could have claimed FSM, I didn't even know we could have been entitled to it. My DD/DS's school would have not an inkling of what our family finances are.

I agree measurements are flawed but I think progress as a focus is the right pivot, particularly at elementary school.

Improving access through outreach, bursaries etc is key for all selective schools - state or independent.

Tinty they don't notify individual parents but - at our school at least - general parent e-mails with easy links are sent out every term, at least once. It would be hard to miss them.

goodbyestranger

We never had emails from Primary, School Newsletters each term was about it.

The local infant school struggles to get parents to register for pupil premium as every child gets free school meals, so they really struggle.
The Junior school less so as people are more incentivised. That said, they don't advertise what you need to be in receipt of to be eligible for FSM and pupil premium.

The income threshold should be on any communication - that's obvious.

There are lots of issues with measuring progress, not least that the things that are (easily) measurable are not necessarily those that are important, and that children do not make regular linear progression. Human children are not products in a factory, however much that fact may displease our very unimaginative powers that be.

In my fantasy world in which I am the despotic ruler of the UK my first action is to ban private education and grammar schools and have all resources and effort focused on schools every child of every ability and every income bracket would go to. How much nicer a world would it be?

I always think people who like the grammar system are people who assume their children will pass the 11+. And people who don’t find the state/private division excruciatingly corrupting and immoral are those who can afford the fees (or who have children on bursaries).

GaribaldiGirl - quite a lot of people think a monopolistic and comprehensive state education system is morally bankrupt.

It just feels morally bankrupt to segregate children on either a test they sit at 11 or on the basis that their parents have more money.

You might say I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one.....😁

Goodbye stranger it's obfuscation , smoke and mirrors...

Some people do not want grammars full stop so try and cut off the supply even if that means disadvantaged children miss out.

Also I don't think Bertrand is viscously against selection... it's fine within the confines of the same building, and all the pupils wear the same uniform!!

it's fine within the confines of the same building, and all the pupils wear the same uniform!!

It's not though. When I was at school (crap comp), I'd have loved to do tech and art subjects, but I deliberately avoided them because I knew the low achieving/poor behavioural pupils were taking them - I didn't want to end up in disruptive classes. So I chose a full suite of more academic subjects instead (sciences and languages) which I didn't really like.

My son is at a state grammar, and he had the freedom to choose tech and art which he really enjoyed and did pretty well in. He chose them because he knew they'd be no more disruptive than the other subjects.

The real issue is about how to deal with the disruptive and non-engaged pupils - they can actually put pupils off taking some subjects, so it's not just about throwing them all together - you can't "set" or "stream" if small numbers of pupil are choosing the more niche subjects, and some, like tech in my day weren't set/streamed according to ability - groups were chosen simply according to timetabling - all groups were random abilities.

it's fine within the confines of the same building, and all the pupils wear the same uniform!!

What do you mean?

As I have said, both my DCs attend a pretty much true comprehensive, so while it is their individual experience i am drawing on, at least it is experience of the comprehensive system,. not a grammar one.

Yes, certain subjects are set - very few in Y7, quite a few by Y9, back to core subjects only in Y10&11, not set for A-levels - but there is mixed ability teaching in some subjects (and all option subjects for GCSE & all A-levels) all the way through. Yes, thee will be some fellow students - of all abilities - that DD and DS have never been in classes with, but that is random, not because of their ability.

DD in particular is in option classes with pupils of very low academic ability, as well as in setted groups with all the high flyers. It hasn't affected her progress in any subject - grades very very high across the board, and she will choose 2 subjects she is currently not in sets for for A-level. Classroom management and discipline are good, well backed up my senior leadership.

There is no NEED to say that grammar schools are 'the answer', when excellent comprehensives are out there showing what the answer can look like.

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 pe

So is what you are saying that the reason that the %PP in all Glopucestershire's grammars - Glocester, Cheltenham and Stroud - is lower than in ANY of th county's comprehensives, is because the areas where pupils some in from (Swindon and Bristol) have far, far lower %PP than Gloucestershire, thus bringing the overall average PP down?

Are you SURE about that?

@bertrandrussell I sort of get that , in the sense that a person I worked with - when his daughter got into the very selective junior years school , punched the air. Sat down and said - that has probably saved me £100k
( school meant to be free but catchment - big waiting list - not super selective ) Now I would not say that is in any way like the straight division at secondary , but certainly she was a bit chosen during junior school. People knew who went to her school.

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”

because I knew the low achieving/poor behavioural pupils were taking them - I didn't want to end up in disruptive classes

This is one thing I hate.

You can have poorly behaved bright kids, but, more importantly you can have many, many well behaved but low achieving pupils. Why is it deemed 'OK' for my child to be in classes with disruptive pupils for core subjects, and yet a child who is good at core subjects can't possibly be placed with them for Art or PE or just tutor time to the extent they have to be at a separate school?

@BasiliskStare - I suspect not one person who loves the grammar school system failed the 11+ and went to a secondary modern. Or had a child who did.

I would like the the whole idea more if twice as much money would go to the secondary moderns. We all know the top 30% will be easy to teach.