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

That’s life.

I can see the point but can't get particularly worked up about it when private education supports and enables a much greater and more damaging inequality. I live in a country where there is almost zero private education and it's wildly frustrating that the UK can't seem to even imagine this as a possibility.

We are a wc family I would say and all my kids passed by doing a set of practice papers bought for £10 from wh Smith. They didn't need any explanation of how to do the questions, but getting up to speed and a bit of familiarity is important.
I don't know who produces 21+ where you are but here it is GL Assessment and the VR does not require a large vocabulary, it is all about being able to stop relationships and patterns, and flexibility of thought. Although having said that I don't think 'cantankerous' is an unusual word.

I'd also note that some of the most competitive graduate schemes recruiting from the top universities use very similar (but obviously harder and more time pressured!) non-verbal reasoning tests as part of their sifting of applications so that they can differentiate between the thousands of applicants applying for, say, 50 places.

If you have thousands of applications from people who all have degrees from great universities and high A level results etc, you need some way to sift them down and this method is extremely common. If it wasn't an effective way of getting to the fundamentals of who is the most intelligent then I doubt this would have remained standard practice for so long, as the initial sifting method.

Then those who pass that screening go on to further stages where soft skills etc are tested through group exercises/ challenges and interviews.

IQ tests also work on a similar kind of basis. Any system will be imperfect and have limitations but I think the focus on the UK in abolishing anything that may be unfair to a few outliers rather than trying to modify it to account for that has led to overall worse outcomes for all. It would be far better to focus energy on what can be done to better tailor education to the specific skills and abilities of different children through provision of a greater variety of schools focusing on different specialities (plus core subjects, of course) so that all children have a chance to develop their own individual talents.

Trying to pretend everyone is the same won't make them so. The one size fits all approach has completely failed and it should have been obvious it was never going to be beneficial for the majority of children.

I don't understand why the UK refuses to look at effective models from other countries and emulate them when they are proven to have better outcomes. It is the same in so many areas of public policy (healthcare, education, energy, pensions etc).

This isn’t correct. Algebra is taught in year 1 yet you aren’t used to calling it algebra. KS1 Y1 curriculum literally tells you on page 7
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7da548ed915d2ac884cb07/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Mathematics_220714.pdf

We tutor 11+. There are many wealthy families. However, the best performing are those from cultures and ethnic groups that value education. The parents will sit with them and they will practise from Y3 onwards. Education is highly valued and that’s clear in their performance. Those families are sometimes well off and sometimes not. If you are a reasonably intelligent parent, you can definitely teach your child using online resources, provided your child listens and responds well to you (not hugely common).

What would you say would be a fair test?

Well of course it is. We deliberately chose to avoid it (lived in Bedfordshire rather than Bucks, moved to Sussex rather than Kent)

Sorry, I meant to write "or children who've had tutoring".

The non-verbal reasoning tests seem to be designed precisely to account for any discrepancies in maths or English levels resulting from variances in prjmary education, remove disadvantages from dyslexia or other language difficulties, and instead test logical reasoning, attention to detail, ability to grasp new ideas quickly. No system will ever be perfect but having just looked up some questions to see examples, they are self-explanatory and shouldn't require any practice for someone with the right abilities.

I think it's odd to say it is in some way discriminatory when the entire point is that these schools are designed to provide a particular type of education for children with specific academic skills that can be developed by those schools.

Many children might not be a good fit for that but have other skills. The existence of grammar schools doesn't devalue other different skills that children may have, that should also be developed by other schools tailored towards those areas of learning. What seems to be lacking in the UK system is those other schools...

It was insane to think that instead of setting up good secondary provision focused on children's individual talents in the arts or technical or practical skills with links to industry and decent apprenticeships etc it was better to largely abolish decent academic education for those able to benefit from it and impose a one size fits all system, subjecting those not able to benefit from it to a pretence of it and thereby wasting their others skills and turning them off learning entirely while simultaneously preventing academic children from learning either because of the resulting disruption from those who don't want to/ can't do it and are forced into the same classrooms.

All so totally dysfunctional and benefits nobody.

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.

This is rubbish. There were no grammar schools where I grew up but my father grew up in extremely deprived circumstances with uneducated parents who didn't understand the point of education. He was one of the top scorers on the 11+ and subsequently went to Oxbridge.

However, while poor people who'd had very limited education themselves both his parents were very intelligent. We know that intelligence is roughly 80% heritable. Very bright children will therefore pass the 11+ usually even with no other advantages, which is one of the main reasons social mobility has declined since most grammar schools were abolished.

Of course mediocre children who have been to prep schools or children unfortunately will score more highly than they naturally would, but no system is perfect and life is inherently unfair. A system shouldn't be abolished because it is imperfect.

Perhaps some adjusting of result by school attended should take place as for university applications to try to correct for it. A review of the tests to ensure that they test inherent intelligence, reasoning and academic ability rather than knowledge would also be a sensible step, as your comments on vocabulary demonstrate. And perhaps some option to re-test at 13 and an expansion of places from YR9 upwards, to enable late developers to join later than YR7.

However, if the general intention is to identify the most intelligent children who will benefit most from a rigorous academic education (which will in turn benefit society as a whole) then in principle the system is appropriate and may simply need honing. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and abolishing the system in much of the country has been immensely negative for highly intelligent children without the means to go to private school.

Meanwhile provision for children for whom grammar schools would not be appropriate also needs an enormous overhaul so that it is appropriate and useful education that actually provides skills that lead to decent careers.

Exactly, a lot of DC at State school with no 11+ prep won't even have seen a multiple choice format.
I cannot belive that any State kid could get a Grammar place without at the very least doing practice papers so they understood what the exam looked like and how it all worked.
A good friend of mine is a teacher at Grammar and invigilates the 11+ , she says every year some DC turn over the paper and just don't know what to do having never been in a similar situation.
I do agree that intensive tutouring to squeeze kids into achieving a place is a bad idea but giving them the tools to at least understand HOW to approach the papers is doing them a dis service

always think 11+ is a misnomer as many if not most DC taking it are 10

The name came from the exam to determine your education route 'from 11+', rather than it being named after the age you were sitting it.

@clary grammar schools certainly don't have a monopoly on good teachers so I'm not surprised at the story about your dad. I had one DC at GS and one at Secondary Modern (2 school years apart) and several of the GS students went to the maths teacher at the SR for tutoring...

Things can be different now but various elements have to fall into place - strong HT and SLT, good teachers, bad behaviour clamped down on so those who want to learn can do so, an ambitious (academicaly) peer group, supportive home environment etc

And has it only just occurred to you that parents who can afford tutoring are at an advantage!

Are you in a grammar area or applying for a super-selective?

Both will have RE on the timetable btw

While I agree with you - I'm more bothered about private schools than grammar schools in terms of being unfair and elitist .

We live in a grammar school area, I think if I'd realised this when we settled here, I'd never have chosen it.

My DC is not at the grammar, although his old friends from primary school are. DC currently says he'd rather be top stream at high school than struggling at grammar so hopefully he's in the right place for him.

I'd get away with grammar schools and gave proper comprehensives with a wide range of abilities.

Yeh S Lincs is where I am from and the alternative if you failed (which us the word everyone used) the 11+ was the school my dad taught at.

My dad was a great teacher, funny and knowledgable and truly caring. The lads he taught were looking towards a job at 16 with a handful of CSEs. I hope things are different now but I’m not sure how different they can be.

Yes @ParentOfOne all the pedagogic research indicates that children mature academically at different rates and the 'brightest' (for want of a better term) at 10 will not necessarily be the brightest at 16, 18 or later. The grammar schools themselves know there is little direct link between 11+ scores and GCSE results 5 years later, though for obvious reasons they don't tend to shout about this 😀

The reasons for different maturity rates are myriad and pertain to both in-school and out-of-school factors. I can offer some ideas if anyone's interested but it feels a little outwith the scope of this thread.

Algebra is on the 11+. They take the 11+ in the October of year 6 I believe? And yet algebra isn't on the NC until year 6. So without tutoring or parental input preparation for the test they are being tested on content the haven't learned. They also don't teach the non verbal reasoning in school but you can practice this with a tutor or at home.

It's certainly not fair on the children who's families don't make the effort to fill the gap in school teaching. And it's not fair to those families who do try to fill the gaps but financially are not able to get a tutor.

It is disingenuous to say that considering a grammar is 'optional', as suggested by a PP, as the mere presence of a grammar has a detrimental impact on surrounding non-grammar schools; even if alternative adjacent or near-adjacent schools style themselves as comprehensive, they are de facto secondary moderns with the structural disadvantages that flow from that. In particular, for those living deep inside a grammar county, like Kent and Lincs, there will be absolutely no alternative to the grammar/secondary modern dichotomy.