The 11+

[Grumpy Old Man]

"The original post from Kate1 was questioning whether it was fair that average middle class children could get a better education than bright working class children."

Indeed.

Grammar schools are not doing what was originally intended (ie an appropriate education for all bright kids) because not enough bright kids from 'poorer' or 'less privileged' backgrounds are getting into them.

This is because there are so few left and they are largely ignored by government. My (thankfully very bright) kids will be going, God willing, to grammar schools and, yes, we are an educated and reasonably affluent family.

It would be a lot easier to fight for the grammar school system if substantially more effort was put into recognising and singling out bright kids in duff areas but it is politically a no-no! Sad.

[Catherine]

I agree with the second, but I fail to see how the good standard of education offered by some private schools damages the quality of education in state schools. What is the chain of causality here? Why abolishing them will raise the standards in state schools??

One reason would be what I said in my post above:

As private schools fulfill the role of providing for the highest achievers, the governments can afford to concentrate mostly on the worse or average.

If private schools didn't fulfill this role, the governments would make more effort to provide it themselves.

As for grammar schools I agree with this:

Grammar schools are not doing what was originally intended (ie an appropriate education for all bright kids) because not enough bright kids from 'poorer' or 'less privileged' backgrounds are getting into them.

But I think that the selection process is largely to blame.

[sj355]

I agree with the second, but I fail to see how the good standard of education offered by some private schools damages the quality of education in state schools. What is the chain of causality here? Why abolishing them will raise the standards in state schools??

One reason would be what I said in my post above:

As private schools fulfill the role of providing for the highest achievers, the governments can afford to concentrate mostly on the worse or average.

Is this a reason against or in support of the fact that there is a missing chain of causality here? I agree that good selctive private schools (and the good is important here) cater only for the very rich and the very poor high achievers (the second to justify their charitable status). Why does this make life more difficult for the state schools for providing quality? Why if they are abolished quality in state schools will go up? Where is the evidence for this if it is the case?

[Catherine]

Why does this make life more difficult for the state schools for providing quality?

Because as it is done by private schools, there is not enough motivation from the state to provide high standards.
The current state policies have removed a lot of the hard/academic aspect from many subjects in order to make them more accessible to everyone, whilst private schools opt for more academic routes such as IGCES etc..
There are two aspects to the success of private schools: the quality that may be linked to money, but also the freedom not to follow the curriculum and to follow more academic paths and policies.
If there was no private schools and the state had to keep the same countrywide standards they would have to look into raising the standards for the most able.

Why if they are abolished quality in state schools will go up?Where is the evidence for this if it is the case?

The issue is not to abolish the quality of the private schools, it is to have it provided by the state.

[sj355]

If there was no private schools and the state had to keep the same countrywide standards they would have to look into raising the standards for the most able.

How does the presence of private schools releaves the state from its obligation to apply the same standards and raise them? Shall I read between the lines? Are you saying that if rich (aka influential) people were forced to send their children to state schools then they would successfully lobby the government to raise standards? Mmm, a very very risky but interesting strategy

Why if they are abolished quality in state schools will go up?Where is the evidence for this if it is the case?

The issue is not to abolish the quality of the private schools, it is to have it provided by the state.

I think it is my syntax that is wrong here. My question is how the abolition of private schools will lead to the improvement of quality in state schools. If my reading between the lines above is correct you have answered my question though. For this policy to work both primary and secondary primary schools would have to be abolished. I do not think that the government has the legal right to do this, given that in most free democaratic countries there is the existence of a private sector in education. How can you make the provision of private education services an illegal activity? Now that I think of it, wouldn't tutors fall in the same category??

[Catherine]

You are right with what you read between the lines, but

How can you make the provision of private education services an illegal activity? Now that I think of it, wouldn't tutors fall in the same category??

The law could be that all children would have to go to state schools. Very controversial, and I cannot see it happening but I am not against the idea in theory.

Something less radical than abolishing private schools altogether would be to make all schools stick to the state curriculum, providing it caters for all ranges of ability.

After all, the government comes out with these brilliant plans about what children should learn, how they should be taught, how much homework they should have etc...
If it is so good, why are some kids (private school kids) not benefiting from it? Even if they do more, go faster, have more homework, couldn't it be considered as detrimental to their development?

In another hand, if the private schools programs of study are better for some, why isn't the state adopting it?

Same reasoning as before, if everyone had to follow the curriculum, there would be more interest in raising the standards within the state sector.

[guest1]

I think a large part of the success of private schools is not so much the school but the parents. It is not only very wealthy people that send their kids private, it is also parents that value education, and are fotunate enough to afford it, so this ethos is then likely to be passed down to the children. Also, there is vast competition in the private schools (mainly amongst parents) so people want their kids to be the best in the class. The private school my kids attend is well known in the area for having a very good 11+ pass rate, however quite a few of the parents still have their kids privately tutored at home, as they want their kids to be better than everyone else in the class.

I think the 11+ is hugely unfair. But what needs to be addressed in this country is not private versus state schools or grammar education versus comprehensive education but peoples attitude to education.

I believe that the biggest reason why private and grammar schools succeed is the attitude of the parents, and thus the children, that attend them.

[sj355]

I believe that the biggest reason why private and grammar schools succeed is the attitude of the parents, and thus the children, that attend them.

That the attitude of the parents is statistically significant in influencing educational success has been empirically proven by several studies, although I can not remember off hand what the proxies used for measuting this attitude variable were.

[74guest]

Unfortunately the whole 11+ selection process can be extremely stressful for the parents and children involved. No matter which selective process was brought into force, there will ALWAYS be those who do not make the grade, who just missed it by a fraction. There will always be parents who listed to their child read regularly, make sure they learn their spellings, do their homework.

I guess my point is, there will always be winners and losers. And those who do not pass their 11+ will come into the second category, meaning they have lost out on a place NOT that they are actual losers. I guess we have to ensure that, as parents, we pick up the pieces and build them back up if the worst happens.

So - I agree that class does come into, it can be pretty expensive paying for tutors, papers etc. however there are other factors too.

[sj355]

[quote="74guest"]Unfortunately the whole 11+ selection process can be extremely stressful for the parents and children involved.

Yes, but to a large extend the 11+ selection process is extremely stressful to the children because it is extremely stressful to the parents. In one case just before an entrance exam a mother said to her child "this is the most important test you will take in your life!". How utterly comforting. I am sure I would have failed on the spot if I was told that!