Bring Back the 11 plus?
Scroll to see replies
they still have it, except now its not compulsory as some parents believe its not fair to put children under pressure or less able students who aren't likely to get in shouldn't have to take it, so yeah its still there and its optional. In my opinion its a better idea, although some parents who are unaware of the option or think that their student will benefit at a comprehensives may put their own child at a disadvantage, therefore children themselves should be told about this in order to make their own mind up.
The only reason I knew about 11+ was because of my parents not because of my primary school.
The only reason I knew about 11+ was because of my parents not because of my primary school.
Original post by minthumbugs
I took the 11+ in year 9 to move to a grammar school. I obviously had quite a few marks deducted for my age. I don't think people realise if they didn't do the 11+ there is still a chance to go to a selective school, most of my friends could have easily gotten in but didn't want to try. Plus my parents did all 3 of our verbal reasoning practice and although my older brother failed (and ended up going to a private school) my younger brother will be joining me at the grammar school next year
so youre 2-3 years behind?
Original post by KPCN
I think grammar schools are a good idea.
Do you think secondary moderns are a good idea?
Would you like to return to a system with very few private day schools and fixed catchment areas, where if you fail the 11+, you go to the local secondary modern unless your parents can afford £30K a year for boarding school?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by InternetGangster
The 11+ (and the tripartite system) is still around in some areas, including mine.
I wasn't aware of anywhere where the tripartite system survived, indeed it barely existed even in the heyday of the Butler Act. Would you mind saying which local authority and giving me a link to the surviving secondary technical schools?
Original post by InternetGangster
WALES rhymes with FAILS.
Congratulations.
Original post by AishaTara
so youre 2-3 years behind?
You go straight into Year 9.
Do you think secondary moderns are a good idea?
Would you like to return to a system with very few private day schools and fixed catchment areas, where if you fail the 11+, you go to the local secondary modern unless your parents can afford £30K a year for boarding school?
Would you like to return to a system with very few private day schools and fixed catchment areas, where if you fail the 11+, you go to the local secondary modern unless your parents can afford £30K a year for boarding school?
I'm not really sure about everything you're taking about as I haven't experienced or looked into it. I don't understand why you're bringing up secondary moderns tbh. In Kent, you choose whether you want to take the 11+ and if you pass it, you can go to grammar school. If not, you can go to a comprehensive (that obviously offers a full range of subjects) or a private school. Like minthumbugs says, you can always do the entry test in Year 8 and effectively have a second chance at getting into grammar school (it's less competitive).
In general, private and grammar schools do do better than state schools (in the case of a grammar school, this may be because the students are generally more academically capable) and for people who want to further their education (and are deemed academically capable), shouldn't they be allowed to have that chance?
I don't understand the argument people put forward about how people are too young to be exposed to this level of pressure - surely this sets people up for the competitive pressures they'll face later on in life, it's not like the 11+ is compulsory anyways (in the current system which is the one I support) and if you don't feel like your child is emotionally ready, you don't have to put them forward for the exam. You can still do well without going to a grammar school (and as mentioned above, there are second opportunities to get in) but obviously it helps people achieve better grades (why are we not supporting this?).
People may argue that some people will receive tuition for the 11+ which makes it unfair for low income families. However, grammar schools mean that low income families have the chance to give their children a good education without sending them to private schools (which are more expensive than private tuition in the long run). Anyways, some schools do prepare children for the exams (my primary school was one of the worst in the county - I was the only one of 2 to get into a grammar school for years - and they still provided me with extra help) and if not, it's up to the parent to help the child.
I think many people would agree that life isn't always fair but I believe that the system I was in did provide the support for students (provided they were willing to work for it).
Original post by KPCN
I'm not really sure about everything you're taking about as I haven't experienced or looked into it. I don't understand why you're bringing up secondary moderns tbh. In Kent, you choose whether you want to take the 11+ and if you pass it, you can go to grammar school. If not, you can go to a comprehensive (that obviously offers a full range of subjects) or a private school. Like minthumbugs says, you can always do the entry test in Year 8 and effectively have a second chance at getting into grammar school (it's less competitive).
I'm not really sure about everything you're taking about as I haven't experienced or looked into it. I don't understand why you're bringing up secondary moderns tbh. In Kent, you choose whether you want to take the 11+ and if you pass it, you can go to grammar school. If not, you can go to a comprehensive (that obviously offers a full range of subjects) or a private school. Like minthumbugs says, you can always do the entry test in Year 8 and effectively have a second chance at getting into grammar school (it's less competitive).
There are several points here.
Lets start with the obvious.
Grammar, comprehensive and secondary modern schools are all state schools funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayer has an interest in the education of all children, not just those that end up passing an 11+. Therefore any system that operates in the interest of a minority of children who pass the 11+ but does not operate in the interests of children as a whole, doesn't serve the public interest. There is no justication for it being paid or by taxpayers, the majority of whom do not have children who will be in the benefited group.
The most common justification for a grammar school system as being in the public interest is that they are an engine of social mobility. Historically, they were. Most of the advocates of a return to a grammar school system consider that they would be again.
We do not currently have a grammar school system. We currently have about 188 irregularly located grammar schools which are survivors. Rightly, no-one suggests that this is logically defensible. Either grammar schools are a good thing in which case all parts of the country ought to be so blest or they are a bad thing and allowing them to continue can only be a pragmatic solution.
In a true grammar school system, the other schools are not comprehensive schools regardless of their names because they are not "comprehensive" ie they do not cater for all abilities because the top slice of the ability range is missing. They are, whatever they are called, "secondary moderns".
The best example of a true grammar school system is most of the county of Lincolnshire. That is because Lincolnshire is a big county and is not subject to a great deal pressure from outside. Parts of deepest rural Kent operate in the same way, but the problem for much of Kent is that there are not enough grammar schools to hold 25% (the top 25% by ability is what grammar schools are designed for) of the pupils in Kent let alone the outsiders from non-selective areas who try to educate their children in Kent grammar schools.
That surplus demand has a number of effects. First of all it destroys any chance of social mobility. Getting into a Kentish grammar school not only requires academic ability, but considerable parental committment. Grammar schools in Kent are much more socially exclusive than they were 40 years ago. It also means that the other schools in Kent are more academically mixed than they ought to be. Plenty of children who pass the 11+ but not well enough or who do not take it because their parents are not willing to subject them to an exam which they are likely to "pass" yet not gain the "prize" end up in the other schools of Kent. In a fully functioning selective system, those children would be missing.
If you had a fully operational national selective system, those features would be absent. There would be no comprehensive schools because there would be no outsider pressure, amost certainly the 11+ would be mandatory and all the top 25% of pupils would be in grammar schools.
Those who advocate a return to a fully selective education system on the grounds of social mobility have two problem areas which I raise on TSR regularly. The first is that when we had a fully selective system, we also had fixed catchment areas. You couldn't shop around for schools. That meant not only did working class pupils get to grammar schools but middle class pupils had to go to the nearest secondary modern.
Secondly, many of the current independent day schools were direct grant schools. They were schools partially funded by the state, where whether you paid fees depended on parental income. The key point was that they formed part of the grammar school system. A child who failed the 11+ usually had no other option than the local secondary modern unless his or her parents could afford a boarding school. They was no viable independent school bail out for most middle class parents.
It is these two points that led to the destruction of grammar schools. Grammar schools were not destroyed by the political left although they hated them. Grammar schools were destroyed by a lack of support from parents (and those associated with them) whose kids failed the 11+, particularly middle class parents who could not see why their children were denied the superior facilities that others had.
Having said that most grammar school advocates do so on the grounds of social mobility, I should add that there is a minority who are basically wanting a middle class perk at the taxpayers' expense. They are often the loudest advocates of the status quo. If their kid gets into grammar school, they save a school fee. If they don't the kid will go private. The last thing they want is more grammar schools and a wider social mix at those schools. A few years ago, there was a campaign, not backed by the Conservative Party nationally, for a grammar school in every town which by reason of the small numbers would have been a classic elite perk.
The reason the Tories nationally do not support grammar schools is that long term, they are vote losers. To produce social mobility is likely to involve a restriction of parental choice that is politically unacceptable. Anything that is merely seen as a perk for the rich would be punished by the majority of the electorate.
A bit like capital punishment, grammar schools are one of these policies which has massive theoretical support but which every politician knows would be ballot-box poison if actually implemented
(edited 11 years ago)
Grammar Schools and Secondary Moderns are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Just because you change the name doesn't change the dichotomy.
Either you choose to arbitrarily divide each generation into winners and losers on the roll of a biased dice (which is effectively what the 11+ is), or you start everyone off on a level playing field and let them make of themselves whatever they can.
Either you choose to arbitrarily divide each generation into winners and losers on the roll of a biased dice (which is effectively what the 11+ is), or you start everyone off on a level playing field and let them make of themselves whatever they can.
Original post by AishaTara
so youre 2-3 years behind?
no. I'm not sure why I would be. I took 1 of the 2 tests for the 11+ in year 6 to get into this school like everyone else did, but we were told because it is in a different county I couldn't apply to it. So I went to the local comprehensive and after some incidents my parents decided I needed to move schools. This was in the middle of year 9. No school would take me in my home town so we applied to the grammar school in the next county. They gave me a weekend to prepare, I took the 11+ at 14? with a few other girls, some were my age, one was a year 7. They told me I had passed by the wednesday and said someone had just moved so there was a space for me to start monday. I had 1 day at my old school (other 2 days were snow days) and moved in the middle of year 9. I joined a year 9 class and so did a few others who had come from a nearby private school because their parents couldn't afford the fees anymore. Not sure if they took the 11+ though.
Original post by minthumbugs
no. I'm not sure why I would be. I took 1 of the 2 tests for the 11+ in year 6 to get into this school like everyone else did, but we were told because it is in a different county I couldn't apply to it. So I went to the local comprehensive and after some incidents my parents decided I needed to move schools. This was in the middle of year 9. No school would take me in my home town so we applied to the grammar school in the next county. They gave me a weekend to prepare, I took the 11+ at 14? with a few other girls, some were my age, one was a year 7. They told me I had passed by the wednesday and said someone had just moved so there was a space for me to start monday. I had 1 day at my old school (other 2 days were snow days) and moved in the middle of year 9. I joined a year 9 class and so did a few others who had come from a nearby private school because their parents couldn't afford the fees anymore. Not sure if they took the 11+ though.
so you took 14+ instead if you were in yr 9 ? my bro did 13+ exam in yr 8
Original post by nulli tertius
The reason the Tories nationally do not support grammar schools is that long term, they are vote losers. To produce social mobility is likely to involve a restriction of parental choice that is politically unacceptable. Anything that is merely seen as a perk for the rich would be punished by the majority of the electorate.
A bit like capital punishment, grammar schools are one of these policies which has massive theoretical support but which every politician knows would be ballot-box poison if actually implemented
A bit like capital punishment, grammar schools are one of these policies which has massive theoretical support but which every politician knows would be ballot-box poison if actually implemented
Is there any evidence that people would actually vote against grammar schools?
As long as good secondary schools accompanied the grammars, as opposed to under-funded secondary moderns, I can't see grammar schools losing votes.
What's the point of parental choice if everything they have to choose from is rubbish (as it is now in many areas)?
Original post by py0alb
Grammar Schools and Secondary Moderns are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. Just because you change the name doesn't change the dichotomy.
Either you choose to arbitrarily divide each generation into winners and losers on the roll of a biased dice (which is effectively what the 11+ is), or you start everyone off on a level playing field and let them make of themselves whatever they can.
Either you choose to arbitrarily divide each generation into winners and losers on the roll of a biased dice (which is effectively what the 11+ is), or you start everyone off on a level playing field and let them make of themselves whatever they can.
Not true. In the Barnet/Enfield area of North London there are both grammar schools and excellent comprehensives.
I think the answer to the whole grammar vs. comprehensive debate lies in fair banding.
If the government legislated to make this compulsory, the 11+ could be reintroduced on an LEA-wide basis; equal numbers of high-, middle- and low-scoring pupils could be sent to each school. The test would then become what it was originally supposed to be: a diagnostic test intended to place each child at the correct starting position, with no sense of failure because there'd be no pass / fail element.
This allows those pupils who are ready for grammar-school education at 11 to hit the ground running, but it avoids rejection entirely by placing those children who would have attended secondary moderns in the same school, with the opportunity to move up later on if they make sufficient progress.
A further advantage is that this allows differentiation by subject, so that if a child has a special talent for maths and science, for example, but struggles with English and history, he or she can start the strong subjects at the grammar-school level, and receive extra help and support in the weak subjects.
This resolves two problems raised by many pro-comprehensive advocates:
1) The selective system is unfair to children who may miss out on a place by a mark or two, or who feel unwell on the day of the exam, or who are able in most subjects but struggle in one (e.g. maths), which denies them a place.
2) The grammar-school system consigns late developers to an awful education in a secondary modern, because they weren't ready at 11.
Under a system of fair banding, this wouldn't be an issue.
So in each school, there'd be a sound base of able, engaged and committed students upon which to build an aspirational ethos. As late developers mature, the proportion would increase beyond the starting percentage.
This system also resolves one of the main problems that blights the current comprehensive system: random ability intakes. Some comps are de facto grammar schools; others are secondary moderns by default. This is just as unfair as the grammar system - in fact, it's more unfair in some ways.
Fair banding = a fair chance for every child: selection without rejection, and a rigorous academic education for all pupils who would benefit, without tossing anyone on the scrapheap.
If the government legislated to make this compulsory, the 11+ could be reintroduced on an LEA-wide basis; equal numbers of high-, middle- and low-scoring pupils could be sent to each school. The test would then become what it was originally supposed to be: a diagnostic test intended to place each child at the correct starting position, with no sense of failure because there'd be no pass / fail element.
This allows those pupils who are ready for grammar-school education at 11 to hit the ground running, but it avoids rejection entirely by placing those children who would have attended secondary moderns in the same school, with the opportunity to move up later on if they make sufficient progress.
A further advantage is that this allows differentiation by subject, so that if a child has a special talent for maths and science, for example, but struggles with English and history, he or she can start the strong subjects at the grammar-school level, and receive extra help and support in the weak subjects.
This resolves two problems raised by many pro-comprehensive advocates:
1) The selective system is unfair to children who may miss out on a place by a mark or two, or who feel unwell on the day of the exam, or who are able in most subjects but struggle in one (e.g. maths), which denies them a place.
2) The grammar-school system consigns late developers to an awful education in a secondary modern, because they weren't ready at 11.
Under a system of fair banding, this wouldn't be an issue.
So in each school, there'd be a sound base of able, engaged and committed students upon which to build an aspirational ethos. As late developers mature, the proportion would increase beyond the starting percentage.
This system also resolves one of the main problems that blights the current comprehensive system: random ability intakes. Some comps are de facto grammar schools; others are secondary moderns by default. This is just as unfair as the grammar system - in fact, it's more unfair in some ways.
Fair banding = a fair chance for every child: selection without rejection, and a rigorous academic education for all pupils who would benefit, without tossing anyone on the scrapheap.
No, it puts an enormous amount of pressure on an 11 year old.
I am, however, in favour of something like an '18 plus' exam, where admittance to UK Universities and specific courses are by a nationwide entrance exam that everyone can take. The higher you score, you can go to the highest ranked Universities etc.
I am, however, in favour of something like an '18 plus' exam, where admittance to UK Universities and specific courses are by a nationwide entrance exam that everyone can take. The higher you score, you can go to the highest ranked Universities etc.
Original post by nulli tertius
A bit like capital punishment, grammar schools are one of these policies which has massive theoretical support but which every politician knows would be ballot-box poison if actually implemented
I know we have disagreed on this before, but I really think this is exaggeration. You're talking the alienation of probably the relatively small demographic of middle class parents with thick kids and a high degree of snobbery. Maybe this was more of an issue when such parents wanted their local grammar turned into a comprehensive so that their children could gain access to its superior facilities (as you suggested in our debate on the subject); but now that the relative failure of comprehensives is there for all to see, surely grammars are a win-win for middle class parents as well as poorer ones?
Original post by barnetbuzzzz
Is there any evidence that people would actually vote against grammar schools?
As long as good secondary schools accompanied the grammars, as opposed to under-funded secondary moderns, I can't see grammar schools losing votes.
What's the point of parental choice if everything they have to choose from is rubbish (as it is now in many areas)?
As long as good secondary schools accompanied the grammars, as opposed to under-funded secondary moderns, I can't see grammar schools losing votes.
What's the point of parental choice if everything they have to choose from is rubbish (as it is now in many areas)?
I am sorry. You haven't grasped my point. There are certain policies, and reintroduction of grammar schools is one of them (capital punishment is another), which command widespread support in the abstract because opponents, having convinced all policy-makers do not need or bother to make the case against to the public.
However, those policy-makers know that the inevitable consequences of implementation of that policy will be massive unpopularity.
When the conviction rate for murder falls through the floor, no voter will say "I goofed, backing capital punishment". They will say, "why didn't you tell us it would be like this". National ID cards had widespread public support until the penny dropped with voters that they would have to have them as well. The public screamed when border checks were relaxed last year, but everyone involved knew that full border checks meant 4 hour queues at Heathrow.
Original post by nulli tertius
I am sorry. You haven't grasped my point. There are certain policies, and reintroduction of grammar schools is one of them (capital punishment is another), which command widespread support in the abstract because opponents, having convinced all policy-makers do not need or bother to make the case against to the public.
However, those policy-makers know that the inevitable consequences of implementation of that policy will be massive unpopularity.
When the conviction rate for murder falls through the floor, no voter will say "I goofed, backing capital punishment". They will say, "why didn't you tell us it would be like this". National ID cards had widespread public support until the penny dropped with voters that they would have to have them as well. The public screamed when border checks were relaxed last year, but everyone involved knew that full border checks meant 4 hour queues at Heathrow.
However, those policy-makers know that the inevitable consequences of implementation of that policy will be massive unpopularity.
When the conviction rate for murder falls through the floor, no voter will say "I goofed, backing capital punishment". They will say, "why didn't you tell us it would be like this". National ID cards had widespread public support until the penny dropped with voters that they would have to have them as well. The public screamed when border checks were relaxed last year, but everyone involved knew that full border checks meant 4 hour queues at Heathrow.
I completely understand your point. It's obvious that capital punishment would be a disaster.
You still haven't explained, though, why grammar schools would be a disaster. If your response is that if a child fails the 11 plus they will end up in a poor school, that's wrong as where I live (North London) grammar schools co-exist alongside excellent secondaries.
Original post by michael321
I know we have disagreed on this before, but I really think this is exaggeration. You're talking the alienation of probably the relatively small demographic of middle class parents with thick kids and a high degree of snobbery. Maybe this was more of an issue when such parents wanted their local grammar turned into a comprehensive so that their children could gain access to its superior facilities (as you suggested in our debate on the subject); but now that the relative failure of comprehensives is there for all to see, surely grammars are a win-win for middle class parents as well as poorer ones?
Look at the proposal that was around about 5 or 6 years ago; a grammar school for every town. Take a town like Mansfield with a population of 60,000 and probably a rural hinterland of about the same again, so say 120,000.
Let us say we have one grammar school with 120 places a year. How is that going to look to most parents of school age children in the area? That is a perk for Sophie from Farnsfield, not for the likes of us.
Do the same exercise for Doncaster. The borough has a population of about 300,000. Again 120 places a year. How are the locals feeling? Why not have a Zil Lane along the White Rose Way while we are about it.
So lets have a different system.
We convert 25% of all school places to being grammar schools. There are two secondary schools in Buxton. One is RC, the other non-denominational. We are going to convert the non-RC one into a grammar school. So all the Buxton parents whose kids failed the 11+ who used to send their kids to school locally now have to send them 9 miles down the A6 to Bakewell. Do you think they are going to be chuffed about that?
Original post by barnetbuzzzz
I completely understand your point. It's obvious that capital punishment would be a disaster.
You still haven't explained, though, why grammar schools would be a disaster. If your response is that if a child fails the 11 plus they will end up in a poor school, that's wrong as where I live (North London) grammar schools co-exist alongside excellent secondaries.
You still haven't explained, though, why grammar schools would be a disaster. If your response is that if a child fails the 11 plus they will end up in a poor school, that's wrong as where I live (North London) grammar schools co-exist alongside excellent secondaries.
See my response to Michael.
I like the idea of grammar schools although I failed the test and i believe that particular school wasnt right for me anyway but my brother went to the boys school and I think that it gave him the support he needed to excell although some can become too competetive within the school and expect too much of their students
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 20 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 31 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 31 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 33 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 33 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 38 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 40 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
857
Last reply 42 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 44 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 44 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 45 minutes ago
What are your thoughts on poverty eradication programs in the worldLast reply 52 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingTrending
Last reply 33 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 33 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
