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

@Neveragain35 How is it non-selective if it gives preferential treatment to children with a higher score?

One school is partially selective: some places are assigned to those who do best in the test, regardless of distance, while most places are by distance.

Other schools admit by distance but use banding.
Say they have 200 places. Students must take this test to apply. Then they divide applicants into 5 bands (I forget the exact number) based on the exact result. So they start with the top 20% of applicants, as measured by this test. From this group, they assign 40 places (200 / 5), based on distance. Then they move to the next group, and they assign the next 40 places based on distance. Etc.

It is not selective, to the extent that distance remains the main criterion. If you live next to the school or have a sibling, you'll get in regardless of the score.
BUT the maximum distance tends to be greater in the top band. So you could have something like the max distance being 3km in the top band and 1500 - 1700 metres in the others.

Some schools that do this use only the non-verbal part of the test, some use verbal and non-verbal.

The rationale is that this should allow a more diverse intake, in terms of ability as assessed by this test. I am not an expert and cannot comment on how real or not this is.

I hope it's clearer now.

How is it non-selective if it gives preferential treatment to children with a higher score?

Honestly, I would never put my child through a selective test at age 10. If it’s non selective it sounds like not everyone does the 11+. So don’t do it, you have a choice. The more people opt out of this ridiculous system, the better chance there is that it might finally end.

The BAME children in grammar schools still come largely from middle class, professional education focussed families. And immigrant families are frequently, by definition, aspirational. The presence of BAME children does not indicate diversity in anything but race.

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?

There is a depressing flavour of "I'm all right, Jack" to some posts on here.

Considering the location of the remaining grammar schools I find that highly unlikely. Have you ever been to Lincs? Or NI?

I don’t think that’s entirely true anymore. I would even say that BAME children of first generation immigrants make up the majority of virtually every grammar school intake.

Good question @SuzieNine. I don’t know.

I’m in Essex which isn’t a full grammar/secondary modern county but a county with four selectives and four super selectives.

The extent to which primary schools do not really speak of the grammar route, let alone prep suitable candidates for the 11+ is really weird. It almost feels taboo and hush-hush. Again, I think it stems from our state school culture and a reluctance to even acknowledge their most academically able children.

This is exactly why Essex grammars admit so many students from private preps, and so many South Asian kids from the London Borough of Redbridge. It all boils down to having motivated parents.

Same, I wasn’t tutored either. Op if you are so against it, don’t tutor your kid. I’m from a working class immigrant family if that helps OP. Let the chips fall where they will.

DD went to grammar school. She did very well in the 11+. Her primary school did not support it or allow it to be sat in the school. She had no tutoring. I figured that if she needed tutoring to get into the school then she’d need tutoring to carry on so we decided that if she got in “naturally” fine. She did very well at the school and very well at university. I don’t actually think it’s fair to heavily tutor a child at that age. Both DH & I also went to grammar schools with no tutoring for the test but accept that it was a different time…….

I don’t think that’s entirely true anymore. I would even say that BAME children of first generation immigrants make up the majority of virtually every grammar school intake.

I don’t think that’s entirely true anymore. I would even say that BAME children of first generation immigrants make up the majority of virtually every grammar school intake.

Anyone with a background in psychology will also tell people that these tests are also culturally biased, as well as put those from the middle classes at an advantage. As they are designed by guess what one the whole white middle class men…

@Jellycats4life I’m also a bit confused by what ^ has said about schools maintaining the “untutorable” myth. Not being deliberately obtuse, i just need to have things spelled out to me sometimes 😂^

Advocates of the 11+ test and the grammar system tend to claim that it is a test of innate ability and intelligence, and so it is inherently fair.
They tend to either deny that tutoring helps achieve better results, or play down how much it can help. They do this because otherwise they would have to admit that the test favours those who can afford said tutoring.

In fact, someone with a background in psychology explained, a few posts above, that familiarity and repeated testing do help, and that's why certain types of IQ tests shouldn't be administered too frequently.

I also remember reading that, when a US company started publishing material to practice one of these tests (maybe the American SAT, not sure), it was sued because the company making the test claimed it was "untutorable" (spoiler: it wasn't). I'd like to find the details but I can't seem to find that story any more.