A question (or three!) about 11+

[mauvish]

First off - I have no axe to grind. The 11+ didn't exist in my area when I was a child so we all went to the local comp. It doesn't exist where I live now either so wasn't an option for my child.

But I have always wondered why so many people support the concept of the 11+. Yes, I'm aware that where grammar schools AND comps coexist, the comps may well suffer by having the more academically able pupils creamed off into the local grammar, but to my mind that's an argument against the 11+. And surely, if you support the idea of 11+, that's on the assumption that your child will pass the exam and go to the school of your choice! Common sense would suggest to me that that can't happen 100% of the time, so there must be people who want their child to sit the 11+, maybe even move house so this could happen, then their child fails the exam and doesn't get into the grammar school anyway. What price does that exact on a child's self-esteem?

(11+ was phased out in my locality when I was about 9 but still existed in the next borough. I had a friend who had moved borough so sat the exam - and failed. It did actually alter how I viewed her - up to then our comparitive academic prowess had never crossed my mind).

If 11+ had existed here when my DD was young I suppose I would have encouraged her to enter for it, but only really because to do otherwise would seem to imply that I felt that she might not do well. I wouldn't feel happy with having to make that decision and putting her under that stress. So rather than actively choosing 11+/ grammar for her, I would have felt coerced into it. Do other people feel like that?

The very best comprehensives in the country manage to enable almost all their pupils to do well so why not, as a society, strive for this rather than 11+? To my mind, the ideal schooling system would be a comprehensive with streaming of subject classes and easy movement between the streams as children show themselves to more or less able at various subjects. This was more or less the system in my old school.

I'm not looking for a fight but I am interested in views!

One reason, for me, was that I wanted DC to learn to work hard. They coasted at the top of a mixed ability class at primary school. I saw at university what happened to people who had always been top effortlessly, and it was pretty rubbish (they had no idea how to work hard or persevere, or try different ways to approach problems, and it was a harsh learning curve while being away from home and living independently for the first time).

So I wanted DC to be with peers who were at least as quick and able as they are, and ideally more so. That wasn’t guaranteed outside a selective environment. It might have happened in a big comp, depending on the year group and how much it streamed - our local one didn’t stream until Y9, when I was looking. That way, they wouldn’t spend their teenage years learning they could get by on sheer ability, because they are in an environment where that’s normal and to do well means working hard.

People don’t support the concept of the 11+. They support the concept of grammar schools. This support only tends to last as long as their child gets a grammar place.

Oddly enough nobody ever calls for a return to secondary moderns.

The 11+ is good for those who pass. Its extremely good for truly exceptional children.

The issue is that its not always the top children that pass the exam (tutoring etc), the variance in development meaning children peak at different ages, plus the poorer standards in the surrounding schools.

We know families that want their kids to have a solid foundation for secondary schools so 11+ really prep them for those essays in English, History or questions with higher marks and Maths which is also useful for sciences. They see the 11+ preparations not as a one off but a stepping stone to when their DC have lots of subjects to study.

Because for those who are really able it is a better experience. Because many were bored in primary for years and sat next to lower achieving children. Because the local comps getting all 7s is considered great, but in the local grammars the expectation is you get mostly 9s because that is what you are capable of. Because in the grammars, there are high expectations and less expectation to wear make-up and be on tictoc.
In an ideal world, if all schools were funded properly and children including gifted children given equal amounts of attention, then the 11 plus would be pointless. But in most of my local comps, they are teaching to a 7 at GCSE. And Further Maths at GCSE or AdMaths, for example, is not even offered. Nor Latin nor multiple languages etc. So it is perfectly possible to do well, but you are not pushed that extra as there is no need to do so in those schools. They have to focus efforts on getting most to a 4 or 5. There are no resources to stretch the most able in some. So it becomes the parents problem to do so or the kids on their own. Whereas at grammar if they are in a very able cohort the teacher can push them at their level.

In affluent areas like Sevenoaks that are full on grammar, the comps are not suffering as they have grammar streams for those who missed out or did not want to do the 11 plus. And they have standard grammars and superselective grammars a train ride away, so parents tend to get some choice of what fit is right for their DC. So really it depends on how all the local ish schools interact with each other rather than some overriding concept of grammar vs non grammar. As my DC are musical, the grammars tended to have a lot of other very musical kids in them too which helps them.

I think it's a shame that the original plan of the 1944 Education Act where there was meant to be 3 types of schools never happened.
Technical Schools were meant to be the third type and they just never got built.

OP: To my mind, the ideal schooling system would be a comprehensive with streaming of subject classes and easy movement between the streams as children show themselves to more or less able at various subjects.

I mean, I agree with you... but our local comprehensive doesn't stream like that at all, and no amount of pressure from me or other parents would change their minds. We have to work within the system we've got.

I was a quiet, studious kid. I found it hard to work when disrupted and changing to a grammar school where there were other kids like me made a massive difference.

It's not just about academic ability, it's about learning styles and being able to do challenging work without having to manage challenging behaviours.

Exactly this. At primary my DC are invisible because they don't need extra help to reach the minimum standard. But they could achieve much more and enjoy education more if they were stretched to achieve more than the most basic skills.

In addition, the idea that all comprehensives are similar is simply incorrect. The sought after comprehensives in affluent areas like Winchester, St Alban’s, Cambridge etc, as examples, tend to have demographics that are similar to grammar schools anyway, in terms of level of education and parental wealth status. Often there is excellent setting in these types of schools and they produce excellent results too. I am in London and the type of demographic in Comprehensives can really differ because people do buy their way into certain catchments or the schools introduce certain selective criteria like music or language aptitude. For us it is great, because we were lucky and got a genuine choice of different types of schools, both locally and a train ride away. A type of selection offers more choice than just buying your way into a catchment.

For us it was a SEN issue. DC could not thrive in the environment of our local comprehensives, and we're not in a position to move. So I was 11+ or nothing. It had to work out and thankfully it did.

Huge supporter of smaller class size and smaller schools (which might be available in some communities, although not where dgd lives).

Because I live in an absolute hell hole of a place where the local schools are terrible. The secondary schools are just horrendous.

Not because of the staff, but the scum who live here. I know people don't like to hear that said, but it's true. We live across the road from one of the estates that they used to bus people onto Jeremy Kyle from.

I live in the sort of place where parents fight in the school playground, the school has no events as parents can't be trusted not to fight, even the nativity plays are filmed and emailed to you as parents have kicked off during those, or turn up stinking of weed.

My dd is so clever. We don't live in a grammar area, closest are half an hour away and dd was the only one in her school for as long as they can remember who has taken the 11+

Thank god she's passed and will be offered a place in a few weeks as she's scored so high.

We failed in life and ended up having to move here a few years ago from a much nicer place, and no way will dd pay the price for our bad fortune by going to a local school which will drag her down. Her primary is bad enough, most of the teachers time is taken up with other children (and parents), and their behaviour issues.

I don't really know if we are supporters of 11+.
But sitting and doing well at 11+ has given our children the opportunity for attending a school which suited their abilities.
That's why they sat 11+.

I do not support the 11+. I doubt many people support a system that divides children at 11. However, I had to work within the school system that I had access to and I wanted the best for my DC like most parents who have high expectations for their children. Quite rightly, resources are directed to those that need it the most but this has led to some able children not been pushed and allowed to coast. This is fine for the school but not for the able child. They may still reach their potential but it is a very different experience.

Whilst the idea of Comprehensive schools is sound. Due to a number of factors including the years that schools have been under funded, variances in parental expectations, challenging student behaviour, the introduction of league tables/Ofsted which caused schools to amend their admissions criteria in order to encourage a greater number of students with supportive parents. The reality is a very mixed bag of schools on offer and the yearly bun fight for the 'best' schools.

I think it's good to separate them at 11.

Why should a really bright child, who wants to learn have to be with children who don't want to learn and drag them down?

I worked in schools too, not as a teacher but as attendance/welfare. I saw it everyday. The whole "a bright child will do well anywhere" things is only true up to a point. They can't do well when teachers have no time for them because they are constantly dealing with behaviour issues, in schools in areas where the culture is everyone thinking schools and authority are against them and the parents think that school is one big fight too, screaming over stupid things like uniform rules and attendance like they are still school kids themselves.

I'll never forget dds last parents eve when her lovely teacher was saying to her "when you go to your grammar school, the children who stop you learning here and take up my time just won't be there, they don't go to grammar schools." Some people might be horrified that a teacher said that, but in dds school, the teachers are exhausted by behaviour issues. I feel so sorry for them.

I went to a grammar school myself (ironic, I know that I've ended up failing so badly in life that I ended up having to live in a shit pit, but a stillbirth sent me insane and we lost all we had, we are now clawing our way back), and it was a great experience. I was with children who wanted to be at school, who had supportive parents who wanted them to do well, not children and parents who were fighting against the system.

Every child in my dds school has the opportunity to try the 11+ if they want. The school never mention it, it's just not a thing here, but every parent has their own free will to look into these things themselves.

Our closest city, half an hour away, has grammar schools. The parents chose not to do it, I doubt most even think about it or know it's a thing to be honest. You don't need money to revise for it - you could get everything on line. But they don't, most of them couldn't care less about education and when the parents are screaming at teachers in the playground and have zero respect for themselves or anything around them, you see why their children turn out as they do. They will be just like their parents. I don't want my child being influenced by that, so I'm glad she's being separated from them at 11, her future will be brighter for it.

My DC came home from school really happy the other day, because due to illness a couple of usually very disruptive boys had been absent. ‘It was amazing, we could just get on with our work.’ As PP have said, classroom behaviour and peers who want to succeed can make a huge difference

This assumes there are two groups of children: bright and motivated or delinquent.
There are in fact huge numbers of motivated but not quite bright enough children failing to get into grammar schools and then really missing out as a result.
I live in a comprehensive area which borders a grammar area. Every year, families from my town have a go at the 11+ to save their children from the comprensive experience, even though, when you compare outcomes of the top 25% of the comprehensive school (effectively the “grammar” cohort), they are at least as good if not better (assuming outcome means HE destination of choice including Oxbridge) than the local grammars.
In the grammar school town, the secondary modern school is pretty dire, and the stress in year 6 of finding an acceptable alternative when the child fails the 11+ is next level - not just for the parents, but also the children.
ObvIously if you live somewhere heavily populated like London or Kent there is far greater choice, but grammar schools outside that area are hugely limiting for the majority or middling children.

It’s the hot housing and years of private tutoring by more affluent parents that I think is unjust.

The concept of the 11+ is questionable anyway so I don’t entirely agree with writing off kids at 11 based on a test score but the original purpose was that it would help improve the life chances of those that were academically most able, regardless of their background and in theory it did promote social mobility.

These days they’re full of middle class kids with parents able to cheat the system. If a child needs to have 2 years of private tutoring in order to gain a place then I’d argue they shouldn’t be going because it’s over inflated scores based on practice.

It’s like IQ tests, you’re not supposed to actively practice them as and you’re not supposed to sit the same IQ test within a year or two as the familiarity will invalidate the score.

There will be people that reply to my post saying I’m wrong and their child did have tuition, but their child would have passed anyway and I believe that to be the case for some kids, so why use a turner in the first place?…..

Well we know the answer, it’s because you believe it will enhance their score! As everyone else uses a tutor then you want to give your child the best chance of securing a place…

It’s evident above that people DO think tutoring helps (of course they do or they wouldn’t pay it) so my observations stand that they are mainly full of children from affluent areas whose parents pay to have their child’s grades inflated.

The bigger picture is that it defeats the original purpose of the concept of social mobility. Kids from poorer backgrounds that could easily pass but can’t artificially inflate their scores don’t get in.

They aren’t based on natural ability, they’re generally average to slightly above averagely intelligent children with richer parents. I think there should be a rule whereby if you’re caught paying for private tuition then your child’s place should be revoked then it would be more fair. Of course people will say ‘Ahh but people pay for GCSE revision etc and life isn’t fair bla bla’ and that’s true but at least they aren’t written off at 11.

"This assumes there are two groups of children: bright and motivated or delinquent.
There are in fact huge numbers of motivated but not quite bright enough children failing to get into grammar schools and then really missing out as a result."

I always find it hard to put across on mumsnet just what an utter shithole I live in. I don't think most people using this forum live in such a deprived area that I've ended up in.

It's all XL bullies, dirty tracksuits, hanging out of windows screaming that next door is shagging their boyfriend, and the stench of weed in the air. That's not me being a snob - it's just how it is.

None of the schools here are good. The teachers try really hard, but it's ingrained that school and any authority is the enemy. Everything is a fight. My husband is one of the heads children's services for the local authority - it's just dire all round.

No brighter kids here are missing out on grammar school places as no one takes the 11 +, even though we are only half an hour away from two of the top performing single sex grammar schools in the country.

There is an awful reverse snobbery here, it's seen as laughable to want to do well. The parents act like children themselves, it's actually embarrassing to see them in the school playground at drop off/pick up, they are feral.

Of course there are some nicer familes and to be fair, they usually tutor their children outside school, some end up home educating but honestly, it's few and far between where I am.

I had a far different experience with my now adult child. Life was vastly different. We lined in a Leafy suburb with amazing secondary schools, we were lucky in the fact that we lived i right by a sought after secondary schools and fantastic primaries. But there, it was all middle class parents who expected their children to do well and had high expectations of school, were actively involved in the school,and knew how to behave appropriately themselves. It was a completely different world and culture to where I am now.

It's very noticeable that all the posters supporting the 11+ have children who pass. I am damn sure they would be less keen if their child had fallen the wrong side of the line. I live in Kent. and see this mentality all the time.

Thing is, if you believe in selection at 11, you need to accept that your child might not be selected.

Edited to remove a random asterisk.

“There are in fact huge numbers of motivated but not quite bright enough children failing to get into grammar schools and then really missing out as a result.”

Agree with that. However, on the other hand, for children with ASD who are academically able grammar can be a far better fit. We may not have as many academic school refusers if we still had grammars for all. It is quite difficult to tell really. All systems have their pros and cons. The reason we went down grammar with DC1 is absolutely because they needed it (ASD profile, highly academic). The school year was smaller (under 130), class sizes were 27 and there were lots of boys with similar interests.
I remember worrying at the time whether he would be up for the 11 plus prep - didn’t use a tutor. He actually loved the work and really came into his own. So that is the other side of the story.

I understand where you are coming from with tutoring.

But the 11+ questions, the way they are worded, the verbal and non verbal reasoning just isn't taught in a lot of schools.

It was in mine, but I lived in a grammar school area where everyone did the exam, so we did it in school. My dds school do nothing like it.

If my dd hadn't had practice books at home and a few months of tutoring (not years)to be familiar with it all, she would have found it stressful just going into the exam, totally unprepared for the completely different format and way of thinking.

It's not just usual English an and maths. God, I passed it as a child, and on opening up an 11+ practice book with dd 30 years later, my head was fucked looking at the pages at first! If you were to sit in front of a non verb reasoning paper workout knowing what it was, with no prep, you'd struggle.

It's so different.

I was prepared to home educate for the first year or so of secondary until we moved to a better area for her to be honest.

If dd hadn't got such a good score, I would still be in favour of 11+