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!

The 11+ is weighted for children on pupil premium.

The pass mark if a child is PP is far lower. So it is a more level playing field for children from poorer backgrounds if they chose to sit the exam.

As someone else has said it's not just about academics.

Those of us (and now our children) who did/do well in Selective schools didn't do so well in a comprehensive environment.

Our daughter moved to a selective senior school and the bullying for being a 'nerd' has disappeared.

Sure she's on track to get great GCSE results but that's second to her mental health and happiness in our opinion.

The reason people are desperate to pass the 11+ is because the comps don’t set standards high enough at the top end (even though there will be kids there who only just failed the 11+ / didn’t have the tutoring others were able to get)

When you look at comps, inevitably their overall results aren’t fabulous - the best are getting 57% with top gcse grades; compared to large numbers of selectives and indies getting 90%+.

In my non-11+ town we have three good comps. One is excellent and large enough to stream from year 7. Sets are reshuffled every term based on testing. My dc has peers who are “grammar school standard” because obviously, there is no local grammar school to do to. And there are a couple of classes who targeting all 8s and 9s at gcse, dc is y9 and only below an 8 in two subjects (PE and a language). My dc will sit 11 GCSEs at her comp.

I truly don’t understand why all comps cannot be like this, if grammar schools no longer existed.

I'm really glad grammar schools exist. Yes my girls are at one!

The speed that they as a cohort have been able to work through the gcse curriculum is fast and as a result they have been revising/doing past papers for much of year 11 in sone subjects.

So it's been the opposite of too much work for dd, because she doesn't need to do any homework/revision at home - as long as she works hard at school, it's covered.

In lockdown rather than normal open days to view secondary's which are obviously marketed to show case the best, instead we were invited to walk around in a normal school day. The difference between the grammar and the local very good comp was huge - at the grammar in every single classroom there was silence, at the comp in every single classroom there was at least one kid doing something disruptive.

It is great for those who get in. For those that don't, maybe that's on the parent? - don't put them in for it if you don't think they'll pass?

We opted for grammar because our local secondary school is way too big, very draconian (academy) and because of the sheer numbers of kids, has some behaviour issues in and out of the classroom. We felt our child would be better suited to a smaller, calmer environment and she also said she would prefer an all girls school. She was working at greater depth throughout juniors and she wanted to sit the 11+ as she wanted to go the grammar school. So she did, and that’s where she is now. She has friends at the other school and she is happy she isn’t going there due to all the rules, the sanctions and frequent bullying issues. She says her school feels calm and no one messes about. The school seems to allow the girls lot of independence and aren’t trying to squash their personalities out of them.

Obviously we know kids at other schools that are happy and I am sure there are kids at our school that aren’t happy. So far, it works for us.

My understanding is that if a child scores has taken SATS and scores highly, their targets in KS3 will be based on that, wherever they go.

In many ways our life had been easier if our children had settled well in primary school and been happy.
They didn't. They were bored 90% of the time and ahead in most subjects. Teachers didn't have time for them. Time was spent on kids within the normal IQ span. Bored children are trouble. They can do a lot of 'fun things' to pass time at school.
I went to a grammar school in my native country so did my husband so we weren't surprised but it would have been easier with avarage kids not bright kids (all 3 children had a WISC test so it wasn't just a mum's idea of smart children).

@arethereanyleftatall its not about the exam... its about this attitude that less smart children don't also deserve a quiet calm environment and focused learning.

Everyone deserves a calm learning environment currently not all schools offer this in a healthy way, so parents who can help their children take the 11+ do.

@GildedRage i totally agree. One of my dc’s primary schools was chaotic - underprovision for SEN was at the root of that. And some batshit ideas about therapeutic behaviour modification. My dc absolutely hated it, but for a number of reasons we couldn’t change school.

DD’s secondary comprehensive has higher behaviour standards. It does feel quite strict but the rules are steadily increased to avoid a hard landing in Y7 for kids who have been used to regular classroom evacuations and constant disruption. I’m not saying it’s perfect but dd reports she can concentrate on most of her classes (as she is now working on GCSEs all the “academic” subjects are streamed).

In our case a big secondary school facilitated the slt to create calmer classrooms - different strategies to manage different abilities. Not perfect but functioning fine for a large number of kids, the school is heavily oversubscribed

I wish my DD's secondary was like that. They seem to be actively opposed to streaming... at least, they don't say so outright, but that's the impression I get. They're keen on "mixed-ability groups" for learning. One of their main policy goals is: "Actively close gaps in attainment and achievement between pupils and all groups of pupils."

I suspect it comes from the same place as many people's opposition to grammars - not wanting the lower-achieving pupils to feel sidelined and "written off" in a lower set.

It's not a policy I agree with, but DD didn't fancy the grammar and there weren't any better options!

“I wish my DD's secondary was like that. They seem to be actively opposed to streaming... at least, they don't say so outright, but that's the impression I get. They're keen on "mixed-ability groups" for learning. One of their main policy goals is: "Actively close gaps in attainment and achievement between pupils and all groups of pupils."”

@zaxxon - I specifically avoided our local school for my DDs that is like that because they were already used as mini TAs throughout primary schools to “help” boys with dyslexia or behaviour problems. Always sat right next to such a boy. Strangely, the same never happened to my DS’ who are actually higher attaining. 1 of them would have not helped and just ignored the person next to them and they other one would have become anxious next to a disruptive child. Yet the girls were seen as helpful fodder. No child should be primed by the education system to become a pleaser and helper, it annoys me!

Do you have a link for this as I’d be interested to read about this.

Perhaps that’s the case in Grammar school areas and if that’s so then that is absolutely brilliant. I really applaud that.

Thats not the case where there is only one grammar school in an area.

Throughout state primary school we listened to how good our children were at helping other children and how proud we must be. Mini TA's are the word, yes.
We were told that you could really tell that dad is a teacher (not primary school) and I have also been in teaching roles.
When we have asked what the school did to teach our children we have mostly been met with silence.

Hence 11+ and grammar school.

First off, grammar schools and comprehensive schools by definition cannot coexist in the same area . In an 11+ area you get grammars and secondary moderns (euphemistically called something else like non-selective school in selective area)

Incorrect @BigSilly for London. Greater London has a number of superselective grammar schools (entry based on score only not catchment, primarily, or half half type thing) and so has no impact on the comprehensives. The only exception is London Borough of Bexley.
London can offer a vast variety of different types of schools, because there are excellent transport links and also they are primarily free until 16. Discounted after that if in full time education.

"Do you have a link for this as I’d be interested to read about this.

Perhaps that’s the case in Grammar school areas and if that’s so then that is absolutely brilliant. I really applaud that.

Thats not the case where there is only one grammar school in an area"

@BLUEcups there's no one link. It's all on each individual schools admissions policy.

We don't live in a grammar area. Our grammar schools we applied for are all over the shop.

We have some in Birmingham, one in Wolverhampton, two up near Telford. We are 25 mins from the closest one (which is also thankfully the best and dd has smashed the score for and it's our first choice). On all their admissions policies they talk about PP scores and give examples. Only the some of the ones in Birmingham have catchment areas. The others don't.

For example, One the lowest score that got in last year was 209. The lowest score that they took for PP pupils was 185. That is the only grammar in that area, the next nearest grammars are 45 mins/1 hour in either direction.

Yes we are in London, so (theoretically) had a choice between secondary, faith school and super-selective grammar. Realistically the grammar and faith schools were not options, so secondary it was.

And although I see where they're coming from with their ethos of "levelling up", I agree with other posters that it puts some kids in a position of levelling off, or putting their own education on hold to become mini TAs (great phrase!).