Page 11 | 11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist

ParentOfOne · 2025-01-12T13:06:16+00:00

We are helping our child prepare for the 11+ test, to apply for some selective and partially selective state schools (we won't be going private). She is doing quite well, so, from a purely selfish perspective, I should be happy. However, I can't help but think that the test is elitist and unfair - it favours children who are well-rounded, and who are so at 11ish. A child who develops well academically but later, and/or who is stronger in the verbal part than the non-verbal, or viceversa, won't do well - state schools do not typically prepare children for these kinds of tests, so the family situation becomes a huge differentiator: if your parents are more educated, and/or take you to the library, and/or can pay for tutoring, you'll have a huge advantage. Libraries have books to prepare for the test, but a teenager can go to the library alone, not a 10-year old. - some of the verbal part is honestly too hard for a child of this age. I am not sure it is appropriate to expect that 10-11 year olds know vocabulary such as cantankerous, recalcitrant, cogitations, etc - children who speak a Latin language (maybe also Greek? Not sure) have a huge advantage guessing the meaning of the more complex words. French-speaking, Spanish-speaking kids etc are much more likely to guess the meaning of initiate, abound etc even if they are not avid readers My sense is that the brilliant child of parents who are uneducated, don't speak another language, don't take their children to the library etc stands almost no chance vs a less academic, less brilliant middle to upper middle class child who enjoys all the other advantages mentioned above. There is of course the separate topic of whether it is even appropriate to separate kids by academic success, but my point is not about that, it is that the 11+ test is a very poor assessment because it doesn't take into account all the other factors. Thoughts?

Rachmorr57 · 12/01/2025 22:02

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Worried1305 · 12/01/2025 22:01

I assume you will be withdrawing your child from the process then OP?

ThisPageIsBlank · 12/01/2025 22:00

My point was to the PP who claimed that because her daughter achieved 9s this proves some comprehensive schools are the best model. My own experience - achieving the top available grades at the time while having an horrific experience at school and learning next to nothing during those wasted years - demonstrates that this is not a valid measure of a school's excellence, even on an individual basis, let alone when you look at the entire cohort and all of the children who not only won't have a full set of top grades but have also had their talents and abilities ignored or crushed out of them because of the insistence on treating children like robots and trying to make them all the same.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 21:58

@ThisPageIsBlank You've misunderstood my post. It wasn't a unicorn school". It was a totally failure of a school.

I am truly sorry for your experience. It is terrible. But it is also, forgive me, completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that there were terrible schools doesn't mean we need more grammars, and doesn't address, let alone negate, all the problems with the 11+ that I and others have raised.

OP posts:

ThisPageIsBlank · 12/01/2025 21:56

These unicorn schools definitely do exist. My kids go to one. Loads of GCSE options, non selective comprehensive, thriving arts and sports communities, masses of extra curricular options, performs above national average on progress 8.

You've misunderstood my post. It wasn't a unicorn school". It was a totally failure of a school. Teachers being locked in cupboards, thrown through windows, children regularly physically assaulted, some of the buildings burned down by students, drugs rife. Very little learning went on at all. It was closed down entirely some years after I left, the building then left to become derelict.

I passed the exams by reading the textbooks when I wasn't at school, and me and a handful of other academic children who taught ourselves saved them from having the worst grades in the entire country that year so that they came instead in second to last place.

cantkeepawayforever · 12/01/2025 21:55

If the bipartite system involving grammars was genuinely ‘a better schooling process’, then the overall results of selective areas should be boosted by having them.

Once corrected for socio-economic differences ( grammars ALWAYS have a significantly more privileged intake than their local non-grammars) then matched grammar and comprehensive areas show no overall advantage in the bipartite system.

However poor the 11+ is at dividing children, it is the fact that this division is to no overall benefit that is the best argument against it.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 21:55

@ThisPageIsBlank Obviously what works for them is to get the most intelligent people with the highest ability because it gives them competitive advantage! It's not in their interests to pass up talent by accident because of confounding factors in the recruitment process.

Obviously??? May I ask what your experience of corporate recruitment is like? Because I can't think of many people who know how it works who'd describe it in such a naïve, idealistic and unrealistic way.

Let's say that, out of 100 applicants, there are 20 very good ones.
If big corporate has a recruitment process that identifies 15 good candidates out of the 20, and they only need to hire 3 anyway, they are not going to invest squillions because, hey, it's inefficient that they are missing out on 5 good candidates, if they can already find more good candidates than they need. They're not. That's now how the corporate world works.

The immense efforts to widen recruitment pools in recent years and the use of such tests to remove bias due to privilege aren't (even if they like to portray them as such!) due to some sense of egalitarianism or altruism: they do this because it is commercially beneficial to recruit the most intelligent candidates.

I'd argue they do it more to appease the political masters of the time than because it benefits their bottom line. Just look at how the very same companies are rolling back their DEI and ESG initiatives now that Trump is back.
I'd also argue there was a very sinister pact between Big Tech and certain political extremists, whereby Big Tech played allies and paid lip service to the "values" in vogue at the time, and the politicians made sure not to inconvenience Big Tech with too much talk about antritrust, regulation, etc.

OP posts:

Hadalifeonce · 12/01/2025 21:53

A million years ago, when I was in primary school, we regularly had verbal and non verbal reasoning tests, as part of our regular assessments. Everybody sat the 11+ at our school, we didn't even know it was the 11+. There was no stress, for us or our parents, nobody had to pay a tutor to prepare us, as this had all been included in the curriculum.

cantkeepawayforever · 12/01/2025 21:47

Tiredalwaystired · 12/01/2025 20:53

My daughter is straight grade 9. She went to a comp.

We don’t need more grammars where we split people into cans and cants. We need more great comps where children can be streamed at various points as they develop or by subject. That’s the fairest way.

Exactly this.

I have had 2 able children educated via an excellent local comprehensive (measured by its value added / progress). If such schools were universal, there would be no need for the distinctly imperfect 11+ (which adequately selects against the least able and least well supported - which is all grammars need it to do - but is woefully poor at actually distinguishing between individual pupils of middle / high ability).

People would still want to claim that excellence in schooling is measured by highest raw results, not progress, though, which is obviously daft.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 21:45

@ThisPageIsBlank Using our most able children as a human shield to try to drag up the results of less able children by forcing them into a one size fits all dysfunctional school system where nobody achieves their potential (even if some end up with good exam results) isn't the right answer.

There are multiple issues with this statement.

You are assuming the 11+ is a reliable assessment of academic ability. It's not. it filters out those children who are not well-rounders and/or who develop later. How do we know that someone who doesn't do well at the 11+ now won't do better 2-3 years later, and someone who does well now won't do worse?
And if someone excels in one subject but not another, how is it fair to label them as not-academic and deny them better opportunities?
Deciding a child's potential and future at 10-11 is unfair and insane.
A system where children can move up and down sets, and can be in different sets by subject, would be much much fairer.

Your second assumption is that it is best to put the most academic children in one school, and all the others elsewhere. I am not expert so I cannot have a strong, informed opinion on this, but I note there isn't consensus among experts on this. Many believe that schools with a diverse (by ability) intake are better. This is why some schools, even in England, use banding: children take a test, are ranked in 4-5 bands, then places are allocated so that each band has an equal number of places.

@ThisPageIsBlank You talk a lot about re-establishing grammar schools, but, even, if we had 2 grammar schools in every postcode, all the issues above would still remain

OP posts:

Tommarvolo · 12/01/2025 21:40

We are in a grammar area. Dd has a tutor. I think the whole system is stupid and unfair. I would much rather she just went to a comp, but the local comps are so badly rated and all her friends will be going to grammar. It's very frustrating!

You definitely need tutoring for it. I think 10-15 years ago maybe not but dd needs not just to pass the test but to get a very very good score. She works to greater depth across all subjects but definitely needs a tutor to help her get through the stupid thing.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 21:37

@Rewindpresse The children who pass 11+ will obviously be bright, but because it is so widely tutored for it clearly is not a test of intelligence or potential.

Yes. Tutoring is a bit like standing on your toes in the middle of a crowd to see better. No one should do it, but, if everyone else is doing it, you need to do it, too, even if no one ends up being much better off.

@AllProperTeaIsTheft Of course it's elitist (intellectually)- that's the whole point.
But my point is precisely that it is socially elitist, more than intellectually or academically so, for the reasons I described in my first post.

@Notmycircusnotmyotter No more elitist than paying a premium for a house in the catchment area of great comps
Two wrongs don't make a right!

OP posts:

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 21:32

@Jean24601Valjean If argue that we need to abolish the chumocracy and private schools.
No, we don't need to abolish private schools. I am no fan of private schools, but banning them is the kind of stuff that happens in authoritarian and outright dictatorial regimes. That is a very slippery slope.

If you want to discuss this further, I'd invite you to open your own thread about it, as this is not the topic of my post. Thank you, and goodbye.

OP posts:

OhCrumbsWhereNow · 12/01/2025 21:32

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 15:45

@hamstersarse What would you say would be a fair test?

A test which is in more in line with what kids do at school will be fairer.
As will a system which ranks students by ability, but does so differently by subject and over time, like for example the concept of sets, whereby you can be in the top set for maths and the middle set for English today, and maybe next year be in the top set for both or whatever. This would be fairer because it wouldn't penalise the children who excel in one subject but not another, and it wouldn't penalise those who develop (academically) later than others, ie you can make it t the top set at 13 even if you weren't in the top set at 11.

That's what the old style Common Entrance was like - but you sat exams in every subject at 12. Three papers in some subjects and a full week of exams. They also had NVR and VR alongside.

Original poster

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 21:30

@titchy Having NVR based tests, rather than content based tests, can be a way of levelling the playing field.

I disagree. I can see the logic for tests based on NVR rather than standard curriculum, but then at the very least kids should practice this type of test in school a little bit. Otherwise, as I said in my original post, the family and social context end up mattering too much. They will always matter, but they matter just too much with the current system.

@ThisPageIsBlank Providing a non-verbal reasoning test that is aimed to look at inherent ability to grasp concepts accessible to all in visual format is a far better measure of intelligence mitigating as mucj as possible for these confounding factors that can scew the results. Not perfect, but better.

My reply is the same as above:

Oh, and many schools use verbal reasoning, too. Again, I dare think that requiring a 10-year old to know what "cogitation" means is bs.

And none of this addresses whether testing at 10-11 is even appropriate (I think it's not).

OP posts:

Linens · 12/01/2025 21:24

I think this characterisation of grammar school parents as sharp elbowed hustling MC professionals needs updating a bit.
DS goes to a super selective grammar, top 20 ish in the country. The vast majority of his peers (over 85%) are British Asian or British SE Asian, he has a few white friends who TBF do fit the stereotype but most of his mates live in non desirable areas in not great housing, often with immigrant parents. Out of his five best friends only one has both parents that speak fluent English. Tutoring is intense normally in someone’s kitchen with ten kids crowded round the table. This is not an affluent milieu, there are very few cars in the car park let alone posh ones. It is not about elitism, it’s about sheer bloody hard work and graft from a very young age from cultures almost fanatical about education. The level of pressure and intensity is not something most white British parents would think acceptable for their children.

BellissimoGecko · 12/01/2025 21:15

Moonlightstars · 12/01/2025 13:30

I completely agree with you and I honestly don't believe a single child who hasn't been tutored by either a tutor or their parents has a hope and hell in blindly doing okay in the tests.
I've had a child go to a grammar school and to go to different state schools and personally have much preferred the state schools and the outcomes academically have an added much to how the children would have done anyway.

Why would you let any child sit any exam without making sure they were prepared for it? I bought some past payers and dd and I went through them together. That was all the 'tutoring' she had. She passed well, went to grammar and thrived there.

Tiredalwaystired · 12/01/2025 21:11

ThisPageIsBlank · 12/01/2025 21:02

I got straight As at one of the worst comps in the country.

However, it was not a nice experience. So much time was wasted and I could have learned far more. Getting good grades isn't the same as reaching your potential.

On paper the school would consider my education a success. I do not. Many children are being failed by the current system because it does not meet their needs at all. Not only highly academic children with no access to grammar skills, but children who are talented in the arts but with arts subjects being cancelled from the curriculum with increasing prevalence. Children who are talented at music or sport. Children who have very strong practical skills and would thrive doing far more design and technology and learning technical skills like electronics. Children with SEN for whom no appropriate schools exist so end up not attending at all.

The system as it stands does not work. The mental health crisis in young people, the number of children long-term absent from schools, the disruption in schools and the skills shortages we have demonstrate this as plain as day. How anybody could assert that it's all working really well is beyond me.

I think you need to split “the system” from individual school management.

These unicorn schools definitely do exist. My kids go to one. Loads of GCSE options, non selective comprehensive, thriving arts and sports communities, masses of extra curricular options, performs above national average on progress 8.

There are simply not enough schools like this though (I fully appreciate how lucky my children are). So it can’t be the system per se if schools like this are possible. We just need to understand what makes school A successful and school B less so.

Rewindpresse · 12/01/2025 21:07

@ThisPageIsBlank Hear hear!

ThisPageIsBlank · 12/01/2025 21:02

I got straight As at one of the worst comps in the country.

However, it was not a nice experience. So much time was wasted and I could have learned far more. Getting good grades isn't the same as reaching your potential.

On paper the school would consider my education a success. I do not. Many children are being failed by the current system because it does not meet their needs at all. Not only highly academic children with no access to grammar skills, but children who are talented in the arts but with arts subjects being cancelled from the curriculum with increasing prevalence. Children who are talented at music or sport. Children who have very strong practical skills and would thrive doing far more design and technology and learning technical skills like electronics. Children with SEN for whom no appropriate schools exist so end up not attending at all.

The system as it stands does not work. The mental health crisis in young people, the number of children long-term absent from schools, the disruption in schools and the skills shortages we have demonstrate this as plain as day. How anybody could assert that it's all working really well is beyond me.

Rewindpresse · 12/01/2025 20:56

durness · 12/01/2025 19:37

NVR tests the ability to do NVR, not overall intelligence.

Show quote history

Yes and it’s same with the other elements of 11+. You learn the algorithm for doing codes in verbal reasoning and then practice for speed and accuracy. None of this tests absolute intelligence or potential and it’s silly to pretend that there is an absolute way of doing that for 10 year olds. I say this as someone with daughters in grammar school and which I am very happy about!

You might as well just apply a lottery to children with the top 20% of CAT scores (I think you can only nudge those with tutoring/practice) and you’d get just as many bright children going to grammar schools and doing well and the same number of bright children in comprehensives. The aggregate result would probably be broadly the same, which is why I think it’s a red herring compared to proper reform of secondary education. However it could have an impact on individuals including potentially Billy from Tower Hamlets @Rivett who I agree stands no chance in the current system unless he is an actual genius.

Tiredalwaystired · 12/01/2025 20:53

My daughter is straight grade 9. She went to a comp.

We don’t need more grammars where we split people into cans and cants. We need more great comps where children can be streamed at various points as they develop or by subject. That’s the fairest way.

ThisPageIsBlank · 12/01/2025 20:16

But that’s the point people are making, many of the Grammar school children are NOT the most able naturally. If they were the most able why would they need to be tutored for years in order to gain a place? The answer of course is because they need to compete with all of the other middle class kids who have also been tutored to within an inch of their life to help them pass the test.

Billy who lives in Tower Hamlets could be naturally academically brighter than most of the kids, but poverty has prevented Billy from having access to such a test to prove his ability.

This is precisely why grammar school provision needs to be expanded, not contracted, per my earlier post about this. When it was available in every catchment area it was a huge engine of social mobility for some of the poorest children. Now that it is available only in very limited areas only those with significant funds can pay the house price premiums to live there and only those with very education-focused parents who also have money to fund this will do so, and then because so many of these people descend on these areas as a result competition for places becomes extreme hence tutoring etc. When they were widely available in every catchment area none of these factors applied so the reason these schools have become more scewed to more wealthy demographics is because there are fewer of them. The answer is to expand provision again to every catchment so that academically able children from every part of the country and every demographic have an opportunity to reach their potential, and meanwhile to sort out the shitshow that state education has become so that those who are not so academic have meaningful and useful education tailored to their needs and skills and with a proper system to gain useful and marketable skills, qualifications and industry-linked apprenticeships that actually lead to careers in the areas of their own talents.

Trying to pretend all children are the same and bully them into submission, destroy their love of learning regardless of whether they are academic or not, ignore their particular talents and skills and interests and crush their creativity out of them has been catastrophic for all. We now have huge skills shortages, a mental health crisis in young people, huge disruption in schools, and very few people reaching their true potential at all. Endless amounts of talent being squandered and a country in decline.

Reforming the education system to make it fit for purpose and designed around the children, and their skills and interests, is the only way to fix this. It's depressing that so few posters can take a wider view on it and still support a system that has been proved to be a complete failure and - based on regular threads here - apparently still appear baffled as to why this is the case.

ThisPageIsBlank · 12/01/2025 20:04

NVR tests the ability to do NVR, not overall intelligence.

Can you suggest a more accurate measure of the particular type of academic intelligence that grammar schools are designed to cater for (i.e. the ability to grasp concepts and relationships and inferences between different things quickly and connect different ideas) while mitigating as much as possible - as such tests do - for confounding factors such speech and language issues, variances in the quality of maths and literacy teaching at primary schools, and levels of general knowledge which - in children that age - generally arise from circumstances beyond their control and have no bearing on their innate academic ability?

thing47 · 12/01/2025 20:02

As I posted a couple of pages ago and @comewhinewith and @Ionacat have said here, the problem is that 10 is far too young for academic selection, too much changes between then and 16, let alone 18 or 21. There is literally no data supporting selection at that age.

There will be a small percentage of children who will get top grades throughout their schooling (I think it is c2%) but the vast majority experience peaks and troughs and deciding which school will suit them for the next 5 or 7 years via a single, non-curriculum based test taken on one day is a terrible system.