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.

Converse - they must have been fussed or they wouldnt have entered you for a retake surely.

You saying you were okay is from the perspective of someone that went to grammar...

You put a child into an exam with a pass mark there is no way on earth they won’t feel as if they’ve failed the test if they don’t hit the pass mark.

Rubbish! If that is what educators are spouting no wonder the kids feel like failures. It’s just a test for a path that is not right for them and they have learned that it’s not right for them...

Like an actor going for an audition. It doesn’t mean that they are a shit actor if they don’t get the part, it just means they weren’t what the director was looking for.

Find another role, one where you’re happy and can excel.

SwimmingJustKeepSwimming the other school options for converse may have been rubbish.

That where I live it’s exceptionally hard to get in. And that even if you get well over the pass mark there’s no guarantee of a place. Also shocked to discover that some schools give children 11+ support before the exam, DD’s school didn’t mention it once.

Yep, they often are in an 11+ area as it creams off the very able. Not entirely sure how thats an argument in favour of grammar schools or that it doesnt matter if you pass or fail . Quite the opposite!

SwimmingJustKeepSwimming “The Cary able”???

The very able at what? Passing the 11+?

That attitude is part of the problem.

*The VERY able

You put a child into an exam with a pass mark there is no way on earth they won’t feel as if they’ve failed the test if they don’t hit the pass mark.

But many grammars don't have a "pass" mark. They have a limited number of places, so just allocate from the list and go down to whatever mark the Nth person got. Some years it may be 75%, other years 85% depending upon the applicants. So no-one passes or fails - the top N get a place.

My daughter was bright and I always assumed she would get into a grammar. However it became clear that emotionally the whole thing was tough on her - she lacks confidence and needs to know she is doing well.

We have a 2 stage test and she passed the first failed the second.

She ended up going to a school which selects 20% of its intake.

In hindsight I actually think it's the best place for her - she does well there and feels confident in her abilities.

Her perception of herself in the grammar would be very different as she would probably be mid to bottom - she would see that as failing regardless of the fact that elsewhere she may be top set.

swimmingjustkeepswimming it was my neighbour who convinced me to have another go as she went there & we were good friends. My parents really weren't that fussed. They were fairly 'hands off' parents. Never checked if I had done work, weren't really that interested in my exam results. I'm not especially competitive - even now.
We took the first exam in school - everyone took it. I wasn't 'entered' for the original exam. It was on a school day like any other. We weren't really aware it was even happening. I think I was probably only a couple of marks off and it was suggested I have another go. So my neighbour encouraged me.
i honestly don't think that being good at passing an exam/being academic makes you more successful.
As a nation we are obsessed more so than other nations with academic success. I don't consider people doing jobs like plumber, builder, hairdresser any less successful - just different to me.

Her perception of herself in the grammar would be very different as she would probably be mid to bottom

You can't know how your child would perform at a different school, with different teachers, different classmates, different ways of setting/streaming, etc.

We were apprehensive about our DS who was very shy and timid - he was towards the top end of his primary school class, but never stood out. He did the 11+ and got a place at our local GS. We were all really worried about whether he'd sink or swim and we already had our plan B to change school after the first year if he didn't fit in or if the work was too hard. We needn't have worried - he's flourished there - only yesterday he was saying how he enjoyed it. From being a shy/timid child with low confidence, he's absolutely bloomed and got mostly grade 9s in his GCSEs last year, in fact, he's was one of the top 15 in his year of 140. We just don't know whether he'd have done as well as the alternative which was a comp - no one knows and it's pointless pontificating. It's his teachers, his friends etc that have made it successful for him - even in the same school, but in a different class could have made things so very different. That's why anecdotal evidence isn;t really helpful, and shows the problems of a diverse non-standardised system which makes comparisons impossible and useless.

Here’s the link to the Bucks stats:

This year

www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/4512448/transfer-test-analysis-by-location-2019-entry-sept-2018.pdf

Last year:

www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/4509757/transfer-test-location-analysis-sept-2018-entry-161017-provisional.pdf

People in Surrey are sitting it!!! And yes, they are heavily tutored and push the pass mark up (well, it’s always 121 but they adjust it so the same proportion pass). The council sends an email and warns parents against sitting it unless they really intend to apply to a Bucks grammar.

This leads to kids who genuinely want to go to the grammar school which is within a sensible distance of where they live not passing by one mark, then having to go to appeal on the result when if the “tourists” hadn’t sat the test then they would have passed.

Don’t get me wrong, I think if you live close to a school it shouldn’t matter if you live in another county. Bucks has a very odd county line and some bits of Hertfordshire sit in the middle of a bit carved out of it, for example. What does matter is when people are travelling huge distances to sit it as a practice run and it’s creating a load of knock on problems for genuine applicants.

It’s only a problem in those counties where it is sat earlier than others. Maybe they should just all be scheduled for the same day to stop it happening? Just plain frustrating!!!

Well what I didn’t know (from a teacher’s point of view) is that:

• in some areas the child taking the test doesn’t have their identity checked, so older brothers/sisters sometimes take the test for a younger less academically able sibling.

• RC primary schools refuse to do the 11+ as they want the kids to all go to RC secondaries

I think the bottom line from my point of view is that if you have a supportive family the actual school your child goes to does not that have a major impact on them. A “good kid” from a “supportive family” will do well anywhere.

“Rubbish! If that is what educators are spouting no wonder the kids feel like failures. It’s just a test for a path that is not right for them and they have learned that it’s not right for them...”
Yeah, right. Not had much to do with the selective system, have you?

RC primary schools refuse to do the 11+ as they want the kids to all go to RC secondaries

You must be in Buckinghamshire? Even in Kent, registration is done for individual DC by their parents.

“RC primary schools refuse to do the 11+ as they want the kids to all go to RC secondaries”

Really? Where is this?

“RC primary schools refuse to do the 11+ as they want the kids to all go to RC secondaries”

Well, it's somewhat different in Northern Ireland. When the regional government tired to phase out the single 11+ exam used by all schools several years ago, the schools took matters into their own hands. So there is now a catholic 11+ and a protestant 11+. Because that's what progress looks like there...

Grammar system is awful. Those that don't get in and end up at the secondary modern (it isn't comprehensive if the top pupils go elsewhere) have a poorer education as a result compared to if they had gone to a school with the full range of pupil abilities. A secondary modern results in worse behaviour from the pupils there, less aspirations, poorer standards from teachers because it's seen as the school for "those that can't'.
All the people on here who are supporting grammars are those from the "I'm alright Jack" camp, whose children got in to the grammars.
I am SO happy we live in a comprehensive area. Research shows ALL children do better if they are in mixed ability classes (with the exception of maths which should be set).

“A secondary modern results in worse behaviour from the pupils there, less aspirations, poorer standards from teachers because it's seen as the school for "those that can't'. ”
This isn’t necessarily true. However, secondary moderns always have a very high concentration of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. And from troubled backgrounds. And children with variety of additional needs. Which inevitably results in more challenging behaviour. And results which are often excellent for the cohort concerned, but which look dreadful compared to a grammar school, so makes the school look bad to an outside observer, which is bad for everyone’s self esteem.

Research shows all children do better if they are in mixed ability classes.

No it doesn’t. This is pure propaganda.

Mixed ability teaching is the red herring here. The vast majority of non grammar schools set, so those who would have gone to a grammar school will be with their peers for academic lessons anyway.

Setting or streaming are not panaceas either. Children require more highly targeted interventions in order to overcome gaps in knowledge and skills, and to address differences in cognitive function.

Bertrand, because there are a few crap non selective schools in Kent you, generalise about the cohort of other non selective schools grammar areas.

You can't get out of your head that what happens in Kent with regards to a supposed educational apartheid, is not represented in other selective areas ! You define non selective schools by Reification of identity.

A question though ? are children in non selective schools in Kent worse off educationally than a child in a comprehensive school in Hull.

“Children require more highly targeted interventions in order to overcome gaps in knowledge and skills, and to address differences in cognitive function.”
Why is this an argument for selective education?

I took the 11+ in the 80s.
My low income mother paid for years of tutoring. I was told I got a ‘merit’ score, don’t remember exactly what that meant but I assume it was a high score, and I went to grammar school.
The experience of tutoring took away any confidence I had in my own abilities for decades. I was precocious and always the top of my class and I had a reading age of 18 aged 7; I now see that I would have passed without tutoring or preparation (the verbal reasoning and maths was not far away from what we did in class and 36 of my 40 classmates passed (Thatcher era class size)). I understood from my mother’s decision to get tutoring that I wasn’t as good as I thought and that I couldn’t be trusted to achieve alone. I knew we struggled to make ends meet and felt guilty.
Grammar school was OK for me but I didn’t make the most of it. I went to Oxbridge but, again, didn’t make the most of the opportunities. I went into a low paid field because of my lack of confidence in my abilities.
(I turned it all around in my thirties but by that time some career avenues are closed.)
My mother did what she did for the best and as she didn’t have an O level to her name didn’t have much insight.
It’s a horrible system particularly for those who fail, but there can also be consequences for those who pass, and the fact that you child passed doesn’t justify the means.
Having been to a grammar school, I would vote for (almost) any party that would scrap them all.