Why dont all kids do the 11+ like they apparently did 40/50 years ago?

[PinkChaires]

I am not from the UK and so i had no idea what a grammar school was when it came time for my dds to go to high school. By the time i found out it was two weeks before the test and apparently they had no chance at passing without tutoring ( trafford). Surely this disadvantages some kids? Kids who are smart but just simply do not have the opportunity to sit the test?

It's a competition. If a number of people start tutoring, the pass mark goes higher, so everyone else who wants their child to have a chance will also tutor. Whether it be with a paid tutor or by a well informed parent.

The Greenwich Judgement of 1990 also meant that schools could no longer prioritise children from their own LA. This meant that selective schools were open to children from adjoining non-selective areas. Win/win for both selective schools and selective areas. The selective schools get even better results and the LA is lauded as being high performing. This definitely affects areas like Trafford as per the OP. It doesn't really affect rural Lincolnshire in the same way as the majority of selective schools are not accessible from outside Lincolnshire.

My daughter is late summer born and goes to a grammar school. There are some silly comments.

Then the exams for the grammar schools will be an 11+. However, the schools will only be in a couple of outer London boroughs, and run the exams themselves, so how would primary schools have the faintest idea which families were even interested especially if they are not in their own LA.

That suggest more a problem with the actual exam and what it is comprised of rather than whether the children were tutored or not.

Why don’t all kids do the 11plus like they used to.? ( before the midish 70s )

Academically selective education is a horrible system!
It labels children from a young age and, quite rightly, a comprehensive non selective system doesn’t stigmatise kids for the best part of their lives.

Well no, it's against the clock. Tutoring means they can answer the questions quickly, they don't have to ponder over them. Most of the children will be capable. Practice increases speed. That's where tutoring comes in.

I'm not against academic education. I am against the 11+. I think 11 is too young. It's a shame pretty much all areas in England have now moved to a primary/secondary model.
Areas that had middle schools, but did selection at the end of Y8, would work better I think.

Isn't that essentially "similar" to Germany? Although theirs is a teacher assessment/discussion I believe.

They not only need to pass, they need to get an extremely high mark! That in itself rules out less able children who aren’t going to be a 40%er untutored but then miraculously become a 95%er in the 11+ with tuition.

I paid for some weeks of tuition. I got good feedback from the tutor (who only tutored for 11+) and didn’t need to pay for loads of tuition. Once the child has got the hang of the papers and is performing at the top of their ability and remembering the tips then that’s it.

I don’t know anybody who has paid for years of tuition for the 11+. Nor any tutors that would offer that here actually. If you’re talking about general tutoring, then only one of my friends’ DC had that and it was a short term course for Maths.

I don't see the logic of this.

If you had grammars and secondary moderns as standard throughout the country then you'd presumably have 25% of children going to the grammars.

Which would mean maybe that if you knew your child was in the top 5% you'd not bother with tutoring but certainly almost everyone whose child was around the top half of their peer group would likely have tutoring to try and make sure they got in.

You're not ever going to have a system of grammars and secondary moderns where the vast majority of parents wouldn't want their kids to go to the grammar.

@HPFA If there were enough grammar school places, then parents wouldn’t pay for tuition because a Pass would be enough (so, say, around 70% or whatever) rather than the 99% mentioned above.

Yes, of course, some children might be borderline to pass, but you get my point (I hope). I disagree that most parents would want their children to go to a grammar if we had grammars and secondary moderns. In my DC’s year, there were some parents who actively wanted their children to go to a grammar school, me included, but most weren’t interested.

There are so many myths on this thread!
Summer born children are not disadvantaged because the scores are age standardized.
No state grammar schools charge people to sit the exams.

@BreatheAndFocus there are no grammars in my county either, and none within commuting distance. And you know what? The academic kids do just fine, because the comprehensives are genuinely comprehensive and cater to their needs.

If I lived in an area with grammar schools, of course I would have sent my kids to one, but they would both have missed out. DD, although capable of getting top grades, is fundamentally a practical and creative person, and very few grammar schools offer sewing and textile art at the level she needed. DS is more of an academic all-rounder, but he really values his friendships with friends who aren't so academic. And being able to go to the nearest school is a huge bonus.

Both of my brothers went to Grammar school in the 70s everyone took the 11+ last year of junior school in those days they didn't have private tuition. When I reached final year in 76 it had been stopped.

Then you’re lucky @UnimaginableWindBird and I’m glad your children are thriving. The comps near me are bad and DC refused to attend our local one after a visit. I looked quite a way away for better comps and couldn’t find any. Travel would have been a problem too if I had found one. With DC’s friends going to the grammar in the next county, great reports about it, and transport to the door, it was ideal - and DC’s choice.

DC still sees local friends - because they went to the grammar too. The friends who didn’t are still DC’s friends and they all get along together. No-one thinks DC is any better or worse for going to a grammar, and DC sees her friends as just friends, and their relationships are the same. They’re happy, DC is happy.

There are none left in Scotland.

If you live in an area where there are only a few super selective grammar schools then that might well be the case.

But I don't see why you think that in a 20/25% grammar system parents wouldnt do everything to try and ensure their kid was in that %. Bucks has a system where there are places for the top 20/25 % in the grammars and tutoring is certainly extremely common there.

If you think that kids overall do better beibg separated at 11 then by all means make the case but I think the idea this would remove tutoring flies in the face of evidence from Bucks and Kent.

If the friends who didnt go to the grammar are happy it rather suggests the comps aren't actually that bad?

A friend of ours paid for all four children to attend a private primary. Known locally as the Grammar crammer as entry from there to the grammars was/ is 100%.
With all of their kids they had private tutors as well ( for approx 2years ) and with their youngest they started private 1/1 at age 6! Simply because they knew ( their words ) he wouldn’t get in.

So that’s a grammar crammer age 4 to 11 ( class size 12 ) plus private 1/1 for 5 years. ( plus mum who was a teacher )

People where we used to live were desperate as the alternative schools were in special measure mainly because the haves and the have nots were so clearly divided.
It really depended on who could pay for tutoring and how long for.
The average was two years apparently ( although generally people kept that all a bit quiet 😆😆)

@BreatheAndFocus it depends where you live. In bucks, we are a full grammar county but you only have to get the pass mark (121) to guarantee a place if you're in catchment. I know different areas look at scores first, but not here, it's really straightforward.

I think every area does it slightly differently, and the tests are different too.

I'm very much against it. I took it myself and passed it, but I don't think it sets up healthy dynamics in communities or families. The hierarchy it creates causes problems.

That is applicable to Alty Boys but not to the other Trafford grammars - once you have obtained a pass, they are allocated by distance with priority postcodes. For only two of them, 20 places are awarded according to score and irrespective of distance.

No, according to their website, the catchment area for Altrincham girls is an 8 mile radius. That takes in a fair bit of south Manchester, a little of Salford, some of the north of East Cheshire and some of the east of Warrington. The Catholic schools prioritise on the basis of pastoral area but I've no idea if they are all in Trafford or not.

On the other hand, take an 8 mile radius of most selective schools in rural Lincolnshire and you'd still be in Lincolnshire, or in the sea!

The Catholic Grammars definitely include pastoral areas not part of Trafford LA (Chorlton is one). Stretford Grammar's priority postcodes also include Chorlton and potentially another postcode that isn't all Trafford LA.

Alty girls IS 8 miles though they’ve been filled within 5 miles for the last 5 years. It’s why house prices around me are ludicrous. The score is not taken into consideration as long as it’s a pass, then after looked after kids etc it’s strictly by distance with WA14, WA15 and M33 given priority (deliberately or not, maybe there’s just enough kids who’ve passed within those postcodes to fill the places).

Because it's an advantage when it comes to applying for jobs .