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

There's a difference between being elitist by accident and by design though.

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

Apologies for misunderstanding. I’m still not convinced that private schools or religious schools for that matter are a good idea. But essentially I think we agree.

The problem is 10/11 is way too young to establish a pupil’s path. You miss the late developers and there’s more of those than you think, you also have those that are ahead of the game at 10 and then come out averagely. There’s no good way of deciding at 10 what path that should take.

I have to say if you’re going to have selection then it really needs to be at 14 - where there should be a range of options - vocational, academic and a third which is a bit of mix of the two which is decided by the school/parents and child in a three-way conversation. (No one size fits all test.) Now pupils need to be in education until 18, there’s no need for GCSEs and a pathway which could be reasonably flexible from 14 as in you could swap between pathways for another two years would solve a lot of problems. The vocational pathway could encompass apprenticeships as well as a variety of other pathways and include functional maths, English and anything else considered necessary. Similar to the German system but with later selection.

Using our most able children as a human shield to try to drag up the results of less able children

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.

@privatenonamegiven

“People who can't afford private or don't get into grammar don't really have any choice at all..it is all based on where you live and if you're lucky enough that your preferred school has space for you after they look at all the applications based on their admissions criteria which can vary quite considerably.”

I agree with you and I think you have misunderstood me. I am saying that we don’t have choice in the current system and I personally think that’s wrong. My simplistic answer is we need to improve standards in all schools, recognise that one size doesn’t suit all, and give parents more choice in the right school for their children so they all have the best chance to succeed. I know that’s pretty simplistic and utopian as there’s no new money for public services or consensus for reform in education.

But while I think the current system is wrong and unfair, I don’t think the answer is to fiddle with grammar schools. Nor is it to pretend that all children at private school are at Eton and Harrow and intent on being the next generation of the Bullingdon Club. I can’t fault people for doing whatever they can for their children just because not everyone can do the same.

There's also an assumption that all grammar school pupils are brighter than all non-grammar school pupils in the same area. There are lots of kids in the top streams of the local high school who do better than some of the kids at the local grammar.

That's the problem with segregating kids on the basis of a test taken when they're 10yo, the results are not necessarily predictive of academic ability.

If you are lucky enough to live in a school with good grammar and good non-grammar schools, great, fantastic.
However, I suspect there aren't many such areas, and I suspect it's more common to live in an area where the presence of a grammar has a detrimental effect on the other schools. That's the practical point which your theoretical argument seems to ignore.

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.

My whole point is that the problem isn't the existence of schools that focus on rigorous academic study targeted specifically towards providing that for children for whom it is appropriate. The problem is not having an appropriate range of other schools available that develop the different talents of other children appropriately so that they can benefit from their own abilities and gain the right skills to move on to lucrative careers.

Making children who aren't academic sit through academic study almost exclusively until at least 16 obviously causes disruption, mean they are turned off learning, wastes their other talents that should be being developed and simultaneously wrecks any prospect of academic children learning to their potential as well. This benefits nobody. To support this system that isn't optimal for the majority of children simply because academically able children being given a chance to thrive is deemed "unfair" exemplifies all that is wrong with British culture. What would be sensible is re-establishing grammar schools throughout the country (with adaptions to the 11+ assessment e.g. those I suggested in my first post on this thread) and ALSO establishing appropriate educational provision through a much wider choice of schools for other children, focusing on their main talents and interests plus core subjects. And with strong links to industry and employer apprenticeships that lead to careers in those fields.

This is not beyond the wit of humankind and exists in other countries in various forms. It's obvious that the current system does not and will never work for myriad reasons and children of all talents and skillsets and abilities are being completely failed.

Yes, a proper education system would cost more. It should be the number one priority for Government funding before any funds are allocated to anything else. I'd happily see funding cut for any other Government department in order to fund this. Without it the UK has no future and managed decline (or unmanaged decline, as we've experienced more recently) will accelerate.

@Rewindpresse this is nonsense If there were more good comprehensive options and as a parents we could exercise choice about which our children attend then we wouldn’t be talking about this.

People who can't afford private or don't get into grammar don't really have any choice at all..it is all based on where you live and if you're lucky enough that your preferred school has space for you after they look at all the applications based on their admissions criteria which can vary quite considerably.

That can’t be prevented though. Grammar schools could be easily abolished.

I agree with some of what you’re saying but I don’t agree the answer is more grammar schools. The money should be spent on normal academy’s available to all. The reason the got rid of them in the first place was because they were inherently unfair. At 11 a kids future was practically mapped out based on a single test. Clever ones that school and ‘thick’ ones the other way.

All children should have the chance of a descent standard of schooling, not just those with privilege. I would also be happy to see private schools abolished for the same reason. You just have to look at the Government. There are more Millionaires from private schools and colleges, it’s quite sickening really.

The only prime minister that came from a local comp was Gordon Brown. There was Thatcher of course, who went to a Grammar school. Look at the influence Musk and Trump have in the Westerm world, money talks and all. Though to be fair to Musk, he is really clever.

No more elitist than paying a premium for a house in the catchment area of great comps

I went to grammar school in the 1980s and tutoring was pretty common then.

Of course it's elitist (intellectually)- that's the whole point. It makes sense to test on things that aren't part of the primary curriculum, because they are looking for intelligence and potential (rather than, for example, which kids have had a better primary school teacher).

I'm no expert on the 11+, but I do teach in a girls' grammar school - one which has quite a lot of middle class students but also a lot from disadvantaged backgrounds with virtually no cultural capital and with parents who could neither pay for tutoring nor help their child with school work or 11+ practice. A large proportion are Muslim girls from families, often in the poorer part of the area, who prefer them to go to a single-sex school

When did tutoring start? I remember turning up at school one day in 1991 and being told we're doing a test today and that was it! I don't remember ANYONE doing any kind of practice, my parents certainly didn't.

They are unfair I agree and are stuffed with kids whose parents place so much emphasis on education (often culturally) that they hot house their kids and expect them to work hours and hours per week.

I think there is certainly an effect now that grammar schools are sparse where they have become populated by the more privileged but this is not due to the 11+ exam (although as I said I believe improvements could be made to that), it is primarily because there are fewer grammar schools. Therefore, housing in catchment areas becomes significantly more expensive and only families with more money can live in one. And because only families with more money AND who value education highly would be prepared and able to pay that premium for housing the school application process becomes even more competitive, resulting in tutoring etc to try to gain advantage.

Were there still grammar schools available in every catchment areas this condensing of such people on the few areas where they still exist would not take place; a far wider pool of intelligent children from different backgrounds would have access to them as they used to in previous generations and the pupils attending would be more mixed and they would better serve their purpose of social mobility based on merit again.

The problem you mention is therefore caused by the policy of reducing the number of grammar schools, ironically. To fix it more such schools need to be established, not fewer.

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.
I went to a super selective grammar school in the 90s and have gone through the process with DC now. It may have been possible to pass without tutoring then, but I genuinely believe it is impossible to do so now, and respectfully, people referring to outcomes for their grown up children who have now graduated aren’t terribly useful.

I don’t think it’s something to get too fixated on personally. I can’t blame anyone for wanting the best for their children and I also have no issue with people buying themselves into catchments with the best performing schools.

I think the real issue is there isn’t enough money in education at the moment and the current school system is not working well for lots of children for lots of reasons. Going after grammar schools or private schools feels like fiddling at the margin and frankly going after easy targets. If there were more good comprehensive options and as a parents we could exercise choice about which our children attend then we wouldn’t be talking about this. That I think is the real problem.

If argue that we need to abolish the chumocracy and private schools.

And on the tax issue, there are quite a few things I'd rather my taxes didn't pay for (I'm still a UK taxpayer). That's just how it works. But I honestly don't think, with the number of grammar schools in the UK, that they have a massive impact on inequality. Hence not getting worked up.

Edit: I realise I could have been clearer here in saying that I think abolishing private schools would be an important and integral part of abolishing the chumocracy. Genuinely interested to hear what practical steps you or the author of the book suggests??

I am way more concerned about grammar schools than private schools, because our tax money funds the former, not the latter.

@ParentOfOne If you're really concerned about unfairness and elitism in society then private schools should bother you regardless of how the schools are funded. Society will remain unfair until this is addressed. I honestly think you're being disingenuous if you claim to be bothered about elitism and fairness and you are not bothered by private schools.

This - If a child needs to be tutored for sitting an entry test that the schools say you’re not supposed to be tutored for, they shouldn’t be going imo. If a child’s good enough and bright enough to pass on their own merit then it’s deserved and what they were initially intended for.

They don't care about having the best system, they only care about a system that roughly works for them. If their system helps them find good candidates, they won't care much that it was discriminatory vs other candidates who could have done just as well in the job

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. 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.

They are unfair I agree and are stuffed with kids whose parents place so much emphasis on education (often culturally) that they hot house their kids and expect them to work hours and hours per week.

The do nothing for social mobility and you can take an average to slightly above average child and tutor them for 2 years to help them pass. They would only be fair if no one was allowed to be tutored and if there was evidence of it they would be rejected (obvs that’s not going to happen)

It’s only really available for kids with enough money to pay for specialist tutoring and not innate ability. Takes it away from a naturally bright child form a deprived background.

Some would say it’s no different to GCSE tuition, but I’d disagree as tutoring a more privileged child for GCSE’s doesn’t prevent a deprived child gaining the same GCSE’s, though it would be much harder for them of course.

I remain of the opinion that, for 10-year olds, it is more important to be tested on something that will be familiar to their school curriculum

I disagree. This is testing knowledge which relies on the child having had good teachers, an appropriate school learning environment, the lessons having been provided in a format that is accessible for them, issues are language or SEND etc.

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.

And
But it wasn't fully clear to me how alien from the primary school curriculum the 11+ test was, and therefore it wasn't fully clear to me how huge this advantage can be

That discrimination too though - a primary school in special measures, or one with large number of for example SEN, or EAL kids, or one that struggles to recruit, or has large numbers of deprived kids, won't be able to teach the full curriculum, whereas a nice middle class leafy primary will be.

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