11 Plus Exams Forum

All the research into this issue concurs with the findings of this study.

So nothing new but try to convert the flat world believers , no amount of evidence will convince them who only see things through there own nostalgic rose tinted glasses .

And while I'm at it, I would also like to put the following myth to rest.

There was an increase in social mobility in the 50s and 60s(the heyday of Grammar Schools) but this can be entirely accounted for the economic post war boom where many blue collar worker's children could move up into white collar jobs,nowt to do with grammar schools.

All historic increase in social mobility have occurred during boom years/decades.

Coincidence? I think not!

As with all things 'in an ideal world'... But the comp I attended wasn't ideal and I did OK but it was clear from a variety of outcomes as a top achiever for that school I got no support and was left regularly to my own devices. A bit more support and direction may have reaped a higher outcome but focus was on the those borderline or possibly failing. Anyone in in-between fell between the massive cracks. I still see this with friend's kids who are bright in non-grammar, they are regularly overlooked. There will always be good schools that are the exception, but all my instinct and experience of friends children has said to me - comprehensive education is good but not if you are at the upper end of the ability spectrum. Which of course we are not allowed to say as that is unfair. But to whom?

PettswoodFiona wrote:Which of course we are not allowed to say as that is unfair. But to whom?

To provide an optimum learning environment specifically for the needs of one sub-set is unfair unless the same is provided for others. Do you know of any mainstream schools which select sudents who are only middle or only low ability?

Interesting, during my recent school visits, one semi-selective school said that they had plenty in place to support the high and low ability learners. However, they recognise that they need to do more to support the middle ability learners and that is something they are currently working to improve.

The comp which is our catchment school doesn't select but in practice takes a huge majority of children who need extra help or who are at the lower end of the ability scale. It's an excellent school but the reason we didn't want our ds1 to go there was because we got the impression that as one of the most able he would be allowed to cost along. He is very academic and I expect him to thrive in the GS hence us taking the 11+. However I very much doubt ds2 will take it. There are 5 good comps here to choose from here though. I think the problem is in the areas where the comps are not so good, that's where they immense stress and pressure to get a gs place comes into play. I don't think there is anything wrong with gs but i think the education system as a whole is failing a lot of children.

noonynunu wrote: I think the problem is in the areas where the comps are not so good, that's where they immense stress and pressure to get a gs place comes into play.

There are no grammar schools in a (truly) comprehensive education system. The "comps" not being so good and the presence of grammar schools may not be unrelated IMO.

No I completely agree.

SlighlyStressedMum wrote:It's an excellent school but the reason we didn't want our ds1 to go there was because we got the impression that as one of the most able he would be allowed to cost along. He is very academic.......

Isn't this problem SSM ?motivated parents opting out of such schools exacerbating the situation and giving the impression that" bog standard" comp schools only care about getting everyone to a grade C at gcse (i.e the lowest common denominator )such that, those parents with "very academic" children who are forced (?)into choosing selective education for their aspiring Einsteins by well meaning but deluded guardians.

We need more pushy parents as yourself{ including myself}-(who value education as the only realistic mode of social mobility) in comp schools that can force up standards not just being selfish and following their one's own children's interests (as I do)

In my area of Trafford we have 7 Grammar schools almost all within walking distance from each other(Trafford is a tiny LEA)-I have little choice but for selective education, but if I was a parent with fellow like minded parents in comp school no such school would be allowed to just coast for any ability range.

This not a criticism of your good self - I am much more guilty than most for my hypocrisy-but I say it, as I see it, this world is not my making-my children come first, so I have chosen both private and state grammar education for my children, what I do with my own hard earned money is my business but when it comes to my hard earned taxes that I have to hand over to the state and morally obliged to do so, I think should be spent for the good of all irrespective of class,ethnicity or creed provided that they UK subjects ( in fact ,I want in reality, most of our family income tax which is in itself is a six figure sum to go towards the poorest in our society)

I want the greatest bangs for my bucks and this does not include expanding Grammar Schools but investing far more into fully comprehensive schools and moving towards(hopefully) eventually making Grammar and ultimately independent schools surfufious in the UK.

Yes it is the problem and I completely agree. The difficulty is that it all seems rather different when it's your own child involved. In principle (and especially before I had kids) I am opposed to selective education and I do think it leads to certain schools not having a full range of abilities. Although incidentally it is just one particular school like that here, subsequently it is my sixth preference, the other 4 comps I named on the form were not like this and seemed very good at dealing with all ability levels. However, when it comes down to choosing a school for your own child, I wasn't prepared to hinder his academic chances for my principles and so we plumped for the grammar school, and hence I have become what I hate!

There are too many parents who would not put their 'principles' before their children (Diane Abbott, Ruth Kelly, Shirley Williams, Harriet H included).

The benefits of grammar could not be really assessed in the absence of sizeable number. The gammars have been significantly reduced to 163 from over 1300. Sometime ago David Davies wrote an excellent article about grammar in Express and gave very good arguments about the future of and need for grammars. More grammars would reduce the need for more coaching and would reduce the pressure on children. In our borough, a very small number gets into grammar schools, yet the results of the non-selective schools is pretty low.