postivies of the 11+

Discussion of the 11 Plus

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now
darbzx
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:27 pm

postivies of the 11+

Post by darbzx »

i am currently studying education. i would like to ask peoples views on why the 11+ is a good thing, when so many people today seem against it/
Guest

Post by Guest »

Selective education at a grammar school is a good thing, but only if you are one of the ones selected. Not so great for those 'left behind'.

The 11+ is only a good thing in that it serves the purpose of selection. It would be better if everyone took it, without the gambl e of failing and being put in the worst school in the area which was not on your list. Plenty of grammar school ability children end up at the better local comprehensive because their parents are not willing to take the chance.

It would also be better if you could get your results before choosing your schools.

It would be improved by not containing questions on maths subjects that are not taught in the national curriculum until after the children have taken the exam.

I may sound bitter, and you may guess from reading this that my child failed, but actually he passed well without the help of a tutor. He got his preferred choice of grammar school, so the system worked for us. Despite this, I think it is an awful system.
Guest

Post by Guest »

I agree with the guest above. People think its a great system when it works for them but this form of testing does not automatically mean that all the brightest children end up at Grammar school. My son was one of the lucky ones but he has a close circle of 5 friends who all work in the top sets for Maths and English and there is very little to choose between them as far as ability goes. Despite this, 'on the day' 3 of his friends got through whilst 2 are going to different comps in the area which just highlights the unfairness of the whole system. Im sure these children will do well at their chosen school but must wonder 'why not me'. We also have a few children that we know who are going to Grammar who were so highly tutored in the techniques of passing the 11+ that you wonder just how they might cope when there. Surely a much fairer system could be to use course work (as in GCSE) and those children working consistantly at the required level are offered places? Just a thought

Sue
Dougal
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:34 am

Post by Dougal »

As the mother of a child who is going to take the 11+ in November, I would like to say that despite the many flaws in the system I am in favour of the 11+. This is because at present I am unable to afford a private education for my child, however I feel that she is bright enough to benefit from an academically based education. It makes me cross that those who would benefit from this sort of education are usually denied by the 'one size fits all' philosophy of comprehensive education. Just because my eldest child is academically inclined does not mean that I denigrate the benefits of a less acidemically rigorous education. I believe that all children should be given the opportunity to access the best possible education, that gives them the opportunity to acheive the best career prospects for their future.
chad
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:49 pm
Location: berkshire

Post by chad »

In my son's mixed ability school it is not seen to be 'cool' to want to learn. You can get away with being clever if you are superb at football. If you are seen to be 'top' academically and sport is not your strong point then you catch the eye of the 'bully'. Then if you are not 'tough' you suffer.
In a selective school being intelligent is seen as the norm..... you are not singled out for teasing because of it, there is a different attitude to academic study.
For my son this will come as a welcome relief, suffice to say none of the recognised 'cool' gang will be going on to grammar school but will take this attitude with them to their senior school.
Mixed ability achooling can work. Those schools that do work usually have streaming in Maths, Science and English as a minimum and a strong discipline ethos.
The eleven plus is streaming within an LEA rather than streaming within a school.
I welcome the idea of comprehensive schools but unfortunately with successive governments worshipping at the 'bigger is better' altar they are failing our children and not providing a suitable education for each child.
In my personal experience lack of funding to spend at the 'front line' ensures class numbers are high and so ability ranges are wide.
It is easier to teach to the middle ability of a class than any other. High ability students are already achieving well above the governments SATS target so will not impact on a school's league table, low achievers will either catch up, have extra lessons/ help or struggle.
Until this changes then, as I have a high achieving child, I will endeavour to ensure he is taught at a pace that is suitable and for me that is within the grammar school system.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Just wanted to say that I can't understand why its okay to select children on the basis of sporting prowess, language ability, and all the other so called "specialist school" criteria, but when we select on the academic ability there is an outcry of unfairness. My child isn't very sporting, but I wouldn't start up a campaing to get rid of specialist sports colleges on this basis. There are terrible double standards here. Ok if my child doesn't get into grammar I will be upset, but I will need to learn to live with this. In the same way that if he doesn't get into Oxford, I will have to learn to live with it. Rejection comes in many forms through life and we need to accept it. It may be that I failed to get an A* by only one point, but that one point was the one point that I needed to get and I have to accept this. Am I making sense here? My message is that we need to accept that some people are cleverer than others in the same way that some are better at Art than others. People want their children to go to grammar and see it as unfair that their children don't get in. But if they let everyone in they would be comprehensive.
Guest

Post by Guest »

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to say that I can't understand why its okay to select children on the basis of sporting prowess, language ability, and all the other so called "specialist school" criteria, but when we select on the academic ability there is an outcry of unfairness. My child isn't very sporting, but I wouldn't start up a campaing to get rid of specialist sports colleges on this basis. There are terrible double standards here. Ok if my child doesn't get into grammar I will be upset, but I will need to learn to live with this. In the same way that if he doesn't get into Oxford, I will have to learn to live with it. Rejection comes in many forms through life and we need to accept it. It may be that I failed to get an A* by only one point, but that one point was the one point that I needed to get and I have to accept this. Am I making sense here? My message is that we need to accept that some people are cleverer than others in the same way that some are better at Art than others. People want their children to go to grammar and see it as unfair that their children don't get in. But if they let everyone in they would be comprehensive.

Agree wholeheartedly! Little bit like the parents who want the sign the petitions to get rid of grammars - some of them I suspect have children who were not successful in the 11+ and are now on a crusade to get rid of them because the system didn't work for them! It would be interesting to do a survey on how many of these anti-grammar people have children that tried the 11+ - I bet the percentage would be high. My opinion is why shouldn'y my children, if they are academically able, be denied the chance of a grammar school education. We are a working class family and we are very proud of what our children have achieved - the grammar system is open to everyone unlike the private sector.
Romeo

Post by Romeo »

One good aspect of the eleven plus entrance exams into grammar schools is that it provides universities with an additional criteria to measure applicants by in that it shows a long term history of achievement, rather than just a series of concocted GCSE results where course work (aided by parents, teachers alike) alone can give you impressive grades.
Guest

Post by Guest »

It's simple.

If you have rich parents, forget the grammar schools, go to public ones.
If you don't bother to do the 11+ and can afford the accommodation near a good comprehensive, then stay with it.
If you have poor parents and you are happy with poor grades, then stay in the school in the council house area.

else, go to grammar if you are lucky to find one.
No grammar school in your area? Go ask the Labour (New).
Guest

Post by Guest »

I see grammar school as the opportunity for my child to get an academic education - it could be her big chance because we live on a council estate and the local schootl isnt very good. People with money go to the private school, people without try for grammar. There should be more grammar schools for poor children. Lots of grammar school places are taken by middle class people trying to save money on school fees. Shouldn't be allowed let all children sit the 11+ and let junior schools teach to the test, then we would all get a fair crack of the whip.
Post Reply