Eleven Plus Exam

A child isn't a failure because they fail to get into a school with a competitive entrance exam and parents feel proud because of all sorts of things there children do, what is to be criticised if they are proud of a child that gets into a competitive school? Throughout their lives my children have made me proud in so many ways about so many things, the majority, being in a purely personal way, quite unrelated to career or monetary success.

Nfk your comment about no one wanting their child to be a 'failure' struck right at the heart of the discussion about the 11plus.

The success rate for the 11 plus varied in different towns, presumably dependent on how many grammar school places were available. In some areas it could be 50% and in others about 20%. It's shocking to label 80% of children as 'failures' because they don't pass a test at the age of 11. I'm not having a go at Nfk by the way, as I don't suppose that's what she intended to do. It is what the system did though - a student teacher at the secondary school I went to, told the class of 11 year olds I was in that despite the fact we were in the A/top stream, we were failures. He pointed to the grammar school across the road and told us the children there would be successful but we never would, we'd never get a decent job or make a success out of our lives.

He was so wrong, on so many levels.

There are educational research studies that expose the flaws in the 11+ exam. One of the obvious outcomes is, as Iam points out, is that if you were in a small town with 30 places at one Grammar school then only 30 pupils could pass.
In the 60s I passed my 11+ in London where there were lots of Grammar schools.

I then could choose any London Grammar school, so long as I could travel there. My chosen school then had an interview process with pupil and parent and another entrance exam.

Some of my fellow pupils left after taking as few O levels as possible.

Later, at Uni, I came across really clever students who had lived in small towns/rural areas, who had 'failed' their 11+, gone to Sec.Modern schools and then taken O levels/A levels later.

Where is fairness in this? After 38 years in education, I don't think 'one size fits all'. But, there should be a level playing field and quality facilities for all 11 year olds to reach their true potential. Otherwise, as a country we will lose so much talent. X

My teacher told my parents that if I didn't brush up my maths I'd be allocated to the B stream. I could never understand how inadequacy in maths could affect my ability to learn Latin. However, I passed as did most of my class - we had been very well taught.

Agreed J52- OH was one of the 11+ winners too- and without any parental support or tuition. I probably would have failed, as I was excellent at so many subjects, but hopeless in Physics and chemistry + maths to some extent. I was very fortunate that our children grew up in Leicestershire in the 70s, where Grammar schools (well the State ones) had by the time they went into secondary disappeared. My 3rd year in teaching was in school where a Grammar and Sec Mod had just amalgamated- the atmosphere was dreadful and I left as soon as I could.

I find it really hard to believe that the 11+ exam still perdures in some parts of UK. 10/11 is far too young to make such lifechanging decisions, and labelling kids forever. I would not have wanted to teach in such a system. But as someone rightly said, kids who are tutored to death for the exam will just not cope with the demands, especially with the huge jump to A Levels.

Ambitious parents don't care whether their children struggle once they get into Grammar School. They just want them in.

I passed my 11+ and I had no idea what that meant at the time other than I was then told that I would be going to a Polytechnic college to take dressmaking, I don't even remember being asked if that was what I wanted.. but only knew how my Mum was bragging to our neighbours that I had passed, I have no idea why I didn't then go to a grammar school as we lived in London so there were many locally.
So come the new term I had to get two buses to a college that seemed to be miles away from home, I knew no one and none of my friends went with me.. I was terrified and didn't enjoy my time there.. after 18mths we were told that we were going to be moved a comprehensive nearer to my home and I was much happier there...

How unworldly I was back then and if only someone had told me what it all meant at the time but my parents were not well educated and probably had no idea how unhappy I was..

You are right, durhamjen to say that there cannot be true comprehensive schools in areas where there are grammar schools.

I remember, during my long commute from Kent to South London (where I taught) listening to Radio Kent and picking up on all the trauma when the 11+ results were published and children were finding put who was going where - such stress for everyone.

Down here in Devon, there is none of this nonsense; DGD1and DGS1 went to the local comprehensive and did / are doing extremely well. They are also enjoying a rich social experience.

(My lovely comprehensive school has been graded outstanding by OfSTED, and I am very proud to have been part of its success.)

But even comprehensives are not a true social mix.
They are largely made up from pupils of a surrounding area. Which can be relatively wealthy.

Well yes- but better than not. The last school at taught at was in a small University Town- and there were 3 secondary/6th Form colleges. 1 private Grammar school, 1 Catholic State secondary and ours, the State Comprehensive. So it was not comprehensive at all, as many who could afford it sent their kids to the expensive Grammar school- most of those who had, often extremely vague links to the Catholic faith, even though most of them had no faitth whatsoever, send theirs to the C. school- and the rest came to us. Still a huge spread, as most of the University lecturers sent their children to us, then we also had all the kids from the large Council estate nearby, and a large and very poor Bengali population- often with parents who could neither read nor write. The balance would have been much better without the Grammar and Catholic school- but hey ho. That little town illustrated just how bizarre the concept of 'choice' can be.

So out of interest, which Counties still have the 11+ and a Grammar/'Comprehensive' divide?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_schools_in_England

Thanks Soontobe.

A surprisingly large number Soontobe but there's 33 in Kent, but only 4 in Essex - how does that work?

I havent the faintest idea.

They are much larger schools, more centralised.

DD started out in a Kent grammar school. Her school only took girls from the top 5-10% of 11 plus results. However there were two girls' grammar schools in the town, and two boys'. The other girls' grammar took girls from the top 15%. This of course depended on places - I too was shocked when I found out that maybe some in the top 15% would not be allocated a place.

The top boys' grammar took from the top 10%, the other, from the top 20% because although there were similar places available, the boys did not do as well as the girls so boys who didn't do as well as girls nevertheless were allocated places.

All of this was explained to me by the headmistress of DD's next grammar school, which was in Lincolnshire. There, it was the only grammar school around for miles, which is the case all over Lincs as the population is so sparse. She told me that depending on how well the pupils did they had enough spaces for between the top 15% to 20%, so that DD would perhaps notice that the pupils may not seem as quick-witted as those she was used to! I looked at her and she said, well, she had just moved up from a grammar school in reading and she certainly noticed it!

I seem to recall that when the 11+ was approaching, we spent every Friday afternoon in my state primary doing practice tests in English, arithmetic and what was called intelligence, as well as spelling. Not exactly the same as private tutoring and, of course, free, but certainly tailored preparation. I think the 11+ was abolished, except in certain areas, the following year.

We did that too, absent. I especially remember the intelligence tests, but at our age we didn't think the name had any special significance.

I hated those intelligence tests Ana because they were so badly thought out. We would have a question such as "Which is the odd one out – lion, dog, cat, hen, cow?" Lion because it is the only wild animal; lion because it is the only one with two vowels; lion because it is the only one with four letters? Hen because it is bird and the others are all mammals? Cow because it is the only one with hoofs, cow because it is the only one that provides milk for humans; cow because it is the only one with multiple stomachs? But you had no opportunity to explain why you had chosen the particular animal.

Excellent post absent. Reminds me of a lovely film about very poor immigrants from rural Sicily arriving at Ellis Island. A young man is being interviewed for suitability to enter the USA- and he's been a shepperd all his life. He answers all the questions totally logically, from his life experience- but is failed and has to return to Sicily, with his old grandmother- the rest of the family being allowed in. Can only remember one of the questions 'what is 4 and 4' asked the immigration man. Confidently the young man replies '2'- which is correct if you are counting sheep on a foggy hillside- 2 sets of 4 legs = 2 sheep. And so on.

Absent - I know just what you mean. I taught in a College of Further Education for many years where some of the vocational subjects were tested by externally set multiple choice questions. As lecturers we knew it was the less able students who would do well in such exams, the more able ones gave the questions too much thought and could not decide on the 'correct' answer. We advised all students not to think too much and to 'put down the first answer you think is right'. Ridiculous.

I sat the 11 Plus without even knowing I was doing it or what it was.

I started my final year in primary school at a state school following the UK curriculum in Hong Kong. My father was then posted to Singapore and I and my sisters got chicken pox and were put in quarantine so I then missed a terms schooling. I then went to an British Forces primary school in Singapore.

One day a teacher put their head around the classroom door and asked 'Anyone here not taken their 11 Plus?' I put my hand up to ask 'What is the 11 Plus?' The next thing I knew I was in another classroom sitting these exams. English, Verbal reasoning and two arithmetic papers.

Much the best way to do it.

What was the local comprehensive, which opened in my sixth form year is now known as the Academy.

The primary my DC attended is also now known as an Academy. This makes me because it was in special measures two years ago and not in an affluent area. When I was at school anyone who went to an Academy was 'posh'

Once the 'comp' opened in '70 the local technical schools (single sex) closed and the sec mods became middle schools. The bright ones were selected by their primary school for 11+ and would then travel 10miles to the nearest grammar school.

I am not sure about tutoring, it might depend on the circumstances. If I felt my gc was in a school which was not giving him the necessary help I would probably pay for tuition but choose the tutor very carefully. Perhaps I would also pay if the local comp had a poor reputation.

Where I took the 11+ there were places at grammar schools for only 3% of girls but 20% of boys. How was that fair? The trouble then, and probably still, is that it is different in different counties and yet still children ae judged on pass or fail. Some 11 year olds are far more advanced than others who are young for their age but this can even up over the next 5 years so passing or failing at this age is very unfair. Fine if you are one of the lucky ones but what about the rest?

I know some people who went to grammar schools and struggled to get a couple of 0 levels and others who 'failed' who got As and went to uni.

I would prefer good comprehensives where there is enough flexibility for children to move up or down according to their abilities at different stages.

The 11+ system was never fair. Of course, everyone knows that middle class children were much more likely to pass the 11+ but there were also huge regional disparities in the provision of grammar school places. For example, 35% of pupils in the South West secured a grammar school place, whereas it was only 10% in Nottinghamshire. Also, there were fewer places allocated to girls than boys.

My own view is no doubt coloured by the fact that I failed the 11+. I and many of my friends had, in effect, been labelled as "not very bright" and most of us believed that to be true. However, I would like to think that even if I had passed the 11+ I would still believe it to be an unfair system that creates division and stifles potential.

So much research has been done on different education systems throughout the world and whether selective education produces more effective results. There is so much fluctuation from year to year as to which country is deemed to have the "best" system and so much conflicting evidence that I don't think the research is particularly reliable or useful.

My view is that if you create a system where only a tiny percentage of young people are expected to achieve and, relatively speaking, the remainder will not, that is exactly what you will get - millions of people who have little belief in their abilities and who will never reach their full potential. That surely is not good for the individual or for the country as a whole.