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.

Start of[f] with the same % of everything and some teachers will still be better than others and get better results.

Of course. And that is absolutely fine.

I have no problem with schools being identified as better schools because they have better teachers and teach their pupils better, and would hope that this would become even clearer once differences in intake were balanced out.

I have a HUGE problem with schools being identified as better on the basis of raw results which take no account of differences in intake.

At the risk of being accused of boring on, in our two school town one school has 37% children attracting pupil premium- the other less than I%. I would offer a prize for saying which was which, but..

What next, a campaign to make the driving test easier to pass so blind people don’t feel left out?

I don’t even understand all this percentage premium stuff. Your kids sit entrance exams and they go to the school that suits their ability.

What the hell is wrong with that?

Your kids are not bright so you want everyone to suffer?

It's appalling, isn't it, Bert?

The thing that I find distressing is the number of people who say that the divide ONLY exists in fully-selective counties or that the existence of comprehensives in leafy catchments whose intake reflects the catchment somehow mean that the social selectivity of grammars is 'ok' [ the Cheltenham example seems to show that even leafy comprehensives are much, much less socially selective than grammars in the same town].

Westwood, my children are VERY bright, so I am afraid that part of your argument doesn't work at all.

If you don't understand the %PP stuff (and surely every educated person whould understand it?), let's spell it out:
One reason that grammars are successful, and that people like them, is that they actively exclude poor children from disadvantaged families. High ability poor children are actively selected against, because of less well-educated parents, lack of tutoring, attending primary schools in more deprived catchments, cost of transport etc etc. If you GENUINELY believe that the 11+ exam really selects 'the 120 [or whatever] most naturally able children living in the catchment, regardless of background, wealth or social class', then I apologise for saying this, but you are deluded.

Westwoodstory-do you think poor children are less intelligent than richer ones?

I am also, by the way, always struck by the fact that grammar supporters on these threads ALWAYS have children who passed the 11+.

If the balance of posting reflected the (at best) 75% attending the 'other' schools and 25% attending grammars, and ALL said 'yes, actually, the bipartite system works brilliantly for us - our children are all in the right schools for their ability so all is wonderful' then it would all be more credible that the grammar system worked for all children....

B&R Statistically yes. Cognitive ability is highly genetically coded (probrably 75%). Bright parents on average will have bright dcs and be wealthier. Also nutrition in pregnacy, lack of stress in pregnancy (because being poor is stressfull) lower rates of PND will all boost a child's cognitive development.

What has being poor got to do with it other than the tutoring angle? but that’s just life.

I have one child. We had one so we could afford the best for them.

Westwood even asking that question shows how privileged you are.

Westwood,

Compared with the general population, and with comprehensives in even extremely privileged catchments, poor children are astonishingly statistically under-represented in grammar schools.

Why? Why should poorer children be overwhelmingly confined to secondary moderns, which the lack of posters saying 'I love the grammar system due to the secondary moderns, where my child is thriving', suggests are perhaps less successful?

*Fuck me Bertrand, you’ve made me determined to stand up for the grammar system also. This irrational hatred of the “elite” when all they’ve done is work hard and get good exam results, is pathetic.

Well done the kids who are bright!*

No one hates the elite.No one hates bright kids. The problem is the impact that selection has on the education of all children.And the not uncommon attitude that bright kids have worked hard and got good exam results, which mostly they have - but do you really think that kids who don't pass the 11+ don't work hard?

Where I live everyone takes the 11+ (as I and husband did yonks ago), so it wasn't and isn't a big deal.

But it’s not a requirement to take it. People can very easily opt out of it and send their kids to non-grammar schools.

My best friend is happy to send her daughter to the local school rather than have her sit the grammar school test. Her daughter is incredibly clever and the school has been given “inadequate” in every category by ofsted but she stands by her ideal that all kids should go to their local school and that’s up to her. I respect her opinion although in her position I would have got my DD to do the grammar school test I think.

but do you really think that kids who don't pass the 11+ don't work hard?

But that’s just life! Survival of the fittest. Choose a career you’re great at and save for your own kids’ education, only have one child, or save for your grandkids generation if you’re not a high earner.

But people don’t. They want it all NOW and they want it all for free and cut down the tall poppies.

If your parents have fucked You kevt with their socioeconomic level you. An either get out (my DP did) or give up.

My ILs were disgusted that the children in my family receive a lump sum on their 21st birthday. Why? Because their eldest granddaughter needed that money and “nobody is going to give her a lump sum”. No MIL, it was from my parents and their parents. The equivalent of YOU and your parents. YOU should have been saving that money instead of two holidays a year and down the pub every night. Then, when your granddaughter is still on benefits at 21 because she left school without any qualifications, you could have set her up with a little business.

But that’s just life! Survival of the fittest.

Are those who pass the 11+ 'the fittest'? Or even the genuinely most able?

It's a really poor test, in terms of reproducibility - on a different day, different children would pass - and in terms of discrimination - it only needs to sift out 'a tranche of the least able', at which it is fine, but at drawing an accurate line between the 120th and 121st child in terms of genuine ability, it is very poor. So e.g. the test needs to select the most able 10%. Nobody who passes is below around the 30th centile, and that will suit the school OK because all will cope, but not all those who pass are in the top 5%.

Oops, 10% in final sentence.

Add in the 25% error margin in testing kids of that age....it's not really accurate.

But tbh I think political meddling in the education system is at the root of all the issues.

In an ideal world I'd scrap the damn lot and bring in a Finnish system. And not run by politicians.

OP - I wish I'd known that the best tutors get booked up years in advance. Here you have to put DC's names down in Y2 for tutoring in Y5!

Cantkeepaway I think you're probably right. Academic success is largely about privilege, income and social class. Also educated parents, a stable home life, availability of books etc etc. Background is the main driver.

So which school might not be as important as we thought. Bright children in a Grammar may well do just as well in a Comp. Children in Sec Mods may do just as well there as they would have in a Comp.

If attainment is all about privilege, income and social class why are you bothered where other people send their DC? You make your choice, they make theirs. Your DC will do well because of you, not their school nor their classmates.

I didn't want to take the risk. My DC sat the 11 plus and went/go to Grammar school because they were the best schools for them.

cut down the tall poppies.

As I have repeatedly said, my children are tall poppies - why would i want to cut them down?

What I want to do is fight for - and enroll them in - an education system that doesn't focus on tall poppies (or those who appear to be tall at 10) at the expense of everyone else.

Selection at university, or even at 16+, isn't quite so bad, though i am still glad to see things like contextual offers for university. A least it will be on the basis of school-taught subjects, studied over years, with performance measured by universal national-level exams.

why are you bothered where other people send their DC

For two reasons:

1. I believe the system is wrong, and fight for it to be dismantled and
2. If everyone said 'good comprehensives and good grammars are all good schools from which able children can succeed', and this was a common understanding, then I would not feel the need to post. But while people say that grammars are 'better', I feel the opposing point of view needs to be put forward - particularly in the absence of the 75%+ whose children attend secondary moderns n grammar areas.

This is state education - I want it to provide the best possible education for the maximum number of children.I don't think selection at 11 does that.
Survival of the fittest? Give me strength....

Infinite - thank you for saying so succinctly what my many posts seem to fail to...!

My children are tall poppies too. I don’t think selection at 10 benefits either the tall or the short poppies.