11+ is going to ruin me

[AlwaysReadyNeverSteady]

Hi, sorry if this is garbled, I've had a very emotionally fraught morning.

DS is due to sit 11+ this September. He has had a 1:1 tutor for around 18 months. She comes very well recommended and is known for being upfront with parents if she thinks their child might not be quite right for the process/test. She assures me he is able enough.

He's been doing well across all areas, although slightly less so on the maths. He has a LOT of homework which I try to spread out across the week, so we're only doing a couple of (set pages) of books a night and the corrections for practise tests he'd done to previous week with tutor.

Its not always been easy to get him to focus after school, which I do understand as he works hard at school too, but we get through it. Lately he has been so emotional about it and I've apparently just got to the bottom of why... Sat with him this morning, going through corrections of test he'd sat last week. Just burst into tears, beside himself, wouldn't tell me why... Gave him some space and afterwards he told me it's because he doesn't like the way I explain things to him and that I'm "too positive."

For context, I've been a primary school teacher for 14 years. I know how to teach children and what works for different children. My kids at school always achieve well, above national expectations and I've never had any complaints about my teaching style. I never get frustrated with him, am supportive and encouraging and always try to approach the work with a positive attitude, explaining misconceptions patiently.
I'm a single parent and work full time teaching, so to be completely honest it's a massive slog for me to keep motivated and positive for him doing all this by myself. His father is utterly useless and does NONE of the work with him.

I just don't know what to do. This whole process is killing me, I am utterly exhausted. Hearing what he said has just knocked me for six. All this money and time I've invested and endless motivation when I've been on my knees after hard days at work. And I've upset him.

I'm sad and confused and I don't know what to do. I have asked him multiple times if it's because he doesn't want to carry on and he always says he doesn't want to give up.

What do I do?

*If posters can't be bothered to read the full thread and actually listen to what I (and many other posters who understand the system) have said, then I can't be bothered to respond to your points.

It's really very lazy and borderline arrogant to comment on a post without reading the full background.*

I have just looked and the OP has posted 72 times so I think people can be forgiven for not reading it all.

I get it completely OP, like a lot of places we have two local comps; one outstanding, fantastic results, wide range of subjects, good behaviour, over subscribed and every parent who cares about education wants their kid there.

The other - requires improvement, awful behaviour, poor results, no 6th form, low choice of subjects at GCSE, has all the kids whose parents aren't much bothered about education.

I would have done anything to get DS into the first (where he fortunately did go and got all 9's and 8's at GCSE). It happened to be a comp but if it had been a grammar school I'd have been tutoring him day and night if needed! Do I think he'd have done as well at the other school - no chance - for 101 different reasons.

I think what is wrong about this is that private schools teach for the 11+ and state schools don't. How is that fair? Why not make the tests accessible for all kids without them having to be tutored in the bits they aren't taught at state school? It's a really out dated and unfair system and I'm grateful that we didn't have to go through it.

First of all, I'm about as far from being a fan of the grammar school system as it's possible to be. But if, and I cannot emphasis that IF enough, one were a fan of the principle as originally devised, one could make an argument that it would work more fairly if there were a lot more grammar schools. Then bright but underprivileged DCs who aren't currently facing a level playing field would at least be in with a shout of getting a place. But as @PreplexJ says above, the system as it currently exists is miles (and miles) away from adhering to that original intention.

Yes. You have them everywhere with proper commitment to technical and vocational training for children who fail the test or you have them nowhere. The current patchwork is a dreadful mess.

Nowhere is far better. I grew up in a non grammar school area and my DC’s have grown up in a grammar school area.
A proper actual comp (not found in grammar school areas except for possibly a few good faith schools) is so much better and fairer all round.
As a PP said, in what world is it fair that if you have money for a prep school your child is taught how to pass the 11+ from year 3/4? State schools are absolutely not allowed to teach the test or practice the test at all.
TBH I don’t know how the system is still going in 2023 for those counties unlucky enough to still have it.

TBH I don’t know how the system is still going in 2023 for those counties unlucky enough to still have it.

Odd comment. It’s still going because for certain children it works brilliantly. Look at the league tables. The results of certain super selective state grammars are outstanding - and they are free.

Complain about sharp-elbowed middle class parents and tutoring if you want but the schools provide excellent educations.

The issue is @LittleBearPad , that they're divisive. The vast majority of people in favour of grammar schools are the sort of people who assume their DCs will/would get into one.

The truth is, educational achievement is rarely linear – most DCs experience peaks and troughs at different ages (there is tons of pedagogical research to support this, and myriad reasons why it should be so). Are we really saying that someone who hasn't peaked at the age of 10 is not suited to an academic education thereafter? Because there is zero data to support this argument.
And as the old saying goes, no one is crying out for more Secondary Moderns…

According to the latest article from BBC and research paper.

"Grammars educate just 5% of secondary pupils in England - but their existence in a local area affects more than just the pupils who go there. For every grammar school pupil, roughly three more go to nearby non-selective schools.
There is evidence that these children do less well at GCSE level than those pupils in areas where there are no grammars, only comprehensives, a House of Commons library briefing paper says."

Oh yes, there is clear evidence of the negative impact of a neighbouring grammar on non-selective schools. There is also no evidence of positive social mobility in grammar areas. There is a positive impact on outcomes for bright children who attend grammars but it is very small, and certainly not of a magnitude to outweigh the negative impact on the children attending the neighbouring schools.

Put it this way. There is a small but good-quality body of evidence to suggest that girls do better in single-sex schools. However by that same token there is also evidence that boys do slightly worse in single-sex environments. Would it be morally acceptable to make every school in England single-sex to the advantage of 51% of children, even if it means accepting a negative impact on the other 49%? If not, why is it acceptable to favour <30% of children in a grammar area, to the detriment of the remaining 70%?

I'm a positive person but sometimes I like a good moan...and I prefer the person around at the time to just let me moan and mumble sympathetic muttering rather than counter with positive affirmations. Might be the same for your son.

Just take a good break over the summer and reassess in September.

Your son sounds like a bright kid, he will do fine no matter where he lands.

Take it easy

So are catchment areas that are based on parental income and ability to pay more for a house closer to a good school.

It disingenuous to pretend that all comps are created equal and rail against grammars.

The same argument can be extended to faith
/private schools etc. I guess few people will disagree on an absolute fair system do not exist. But current sysrem is especially not in favor for those who need education lift up most.

Yes although with faith schools determined attendance at church will usually do the job.

Indies are a different issue.

I’m also deeply sceptical about faith based entrance requirements.

Oh I agree with you, totally. Lots of unfairness in the current system.

But grammar schools have the unfairness built in, they are quite literally designed to segregate children academically. I fundamentally disagree that this is the correct approach. For me it represents a case of 'I'm alright Jack, I don't give a shit about anyone else's children' versus 'let's see if we can improve the educational opportunities for all'.

Odd comment. It’s still going because for certain children it works brilliantly. Look at the league tables. The results of certain super selective state grammars are outstanding - and they are free.

Counties will full grammar school systems get no better results than counties with similar demographics with full comprehensive systems.

I don't find it particularly impressive that super selective schools that only select the top 2% of the ability range, many of whom are tutored as well, get outstanding results. It would be more notable if they didn't.

If your DS genuinely needs that level of tutoring and homework to pass the 11+ then grammar school is not the place for him. I mean this genuinely.

Any tutoring for 11+ really should just be time management and familiarisation of the types of questions as you might for any exam. The 11+ content is based on curriculum for that age and -depending on where you are - non verbal reasoning. If they are struggling before they get there then they will certainly struggle when they are actually there.

Areas change, new houses are built, catchments have to be adjusted as a result, schools improve and decline. That’s not comparable to the situation of non-selective schools with neighbouring grammars whose attempts to improve are hamstrung by their context.

It’s great that your son is having a good experience in a grammar, it really is. However if you want to engage with this issue and declare it ‘odd’ that anyone might object to grammars you will need to move away from whataboutery and find a way to resolve the cognitive dissonance that a system that favours your son on an individual level sadly has a negative impact on many of his peers. It would be disingenuous of those of us who work in this area and are interested in the evidence at a systemic level to deny this.

I've just RTFT fully and see that your school has not covered the curriculum that it should have by Yr 5, I'm assuming it does not have different bands of teaching for more and less able students? That does make things tougher.

Where does she say that? I’ve just skimmed again and can’t find it. She does say that the 11+ maths includes year 6 curriculum content that won’t have been taught by the autumn term but that is not the same thing.

"The 11+ content is based on curriculum for that age"

No if PP went through recent 11+ will know a lot of advantage on the exam if cover a higher level of curriculum.... For Maths and English and VR!

@ThanksItHasPockets my two DSs sat it and they had covered the maths content so I am assuming its a school thing rather than a curriculum thing. I also commented about the different bands of teaching so our primary had children who were working at a higher level that may have covered that content already within Yr 5. That said, my understanding is that it should only contain levels of English and maths that should have been covered within the curriculum - this is for Bucks.

Is the test age appropriate?The Buckinghamshire STT is designed to be taken at the beginning of the Autumn term when children move in to Year 6. Literacy levels in the test are kept as low as possible to ensure that the test assesses reasoning ability rather than levels of literacy. Additionally maths or English content in the test does not go beyond what the national curriculum expects children to know and be able to do by the end of Year 5.

Copied from their website.

Bucks is a grammar county, it is different game.

Grammar schools are not the be all and end all. Many are very overrated, especially in Bucks. DCGS is rife with drugs, bullying, racism, homophobia, theft, you name it. Some of the teaching staff are as bad as the kids who are worse than their parents and this takes some doing.