Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

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

334 replies

ParentOfOne · 12/01/2025 13:06

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
OhCrumbsWhereNow · 15/01/2025 17:52

GildedRage · 15/01/2025 17:48

@OhCrumbsWhereNow really? The same way home ed students occasionally take other qualifying exams. Where I live that’s via the local college; the exam board has certain criteria, the college fulfills the invigilation and secure return of exams. No one is inventing the wheel here.

But that is the case if you are wanting to scrap 11+ (easy to prep for at home) and substitute with SATs that neither private schools nor HE kids will have done.

You are the one suggesting reinventing the wheel.

SATs also don't work well for SEN. My DD has extremely high VR and NVR scores - she's just really, really good at NVR in particular - but would have failed her SATs had she taken them (Covid years).

We didn't sit for grammars as they wouldn't have been a good fit for her, but I suspect she would have scored high enough for a place.

GildedRage · 15/01/2025 17:48

@OhCrumbsWhereNow really? The same way home ed students occasionally take other qualifying exams. Where I live that’s via the local college; the exam board has certain criteria, the college fulfills the invigilation and secure return of exams. No one is inventing the wheel here.

OhCrumbsWhereNow · 15/01/2025 17:43

GildedRage · 15/01/2025 17:29

@OhCrumbsWhereNow private schools arrange for the ISEB's to be done on site for those students that are applying to schools that require them. they easily could offer the same (SAT exam) for students wish to apply to grammar schools.

And for home ed students?

Paradisegained · 15/01/2025 17:35

Society is elitist and we don’t live in a communist country.

SATs are elitist. GCSEs and A level and then universities.

I have moved heaven and earth to get my children into outstanding schools.
I have fought tooth and nail for EHCP and resources.

I paid for tutoring where needed and used systems where needed.

Currently DP - English specialist is doing 60 minutes with our SEN DC (who has been given extra time, scribe and laptop for all classwork and exams) with his CGP guide in English.

He will then have a break and then do 60 minutes Maths with me.

He went from 4 years behind to on track for English and ahead in Maths. He isn’t going private but is going to an outstanding state. In September we will carry on tutoring him in English / Maths and whichever else he needs.

GildedRage · 15/01/2025 17:29

@OhCrumbsWhereNow private schools arrange for the ISEB's to be done on site for those students that are applying to schools that require them. they easily could offer the same (SAT exam) for students wish to apply to grammar schools.

OhCrumbsWhereNow · 15/01/2025 17:24

north51 · 15/01/2025 17:01

Why cant they just use SATs - which everyone does and which the schools prep for - to select for grammar schools? At the end of the day, pupils in grammar schools are going to be taught to sit GCSEs which are far more similar to SATs than an IQ test so the results of those tests should be far more relevant.

The private schools around us set written maths and english papers for their selection process.

It seems mad to create a separate 11+ test - which generates a whole tutoring industry around it - and quite obviously discriminates against those whose families aren't engaged or don't have the funds to pay.

Not everyone does do SATs - only state schools - and grammars are open to all.

And far easier to tutor for SATs than for 11+

All that will happen is that parents will start tutoring in Y4 for the primary curriculum - and that will have a far worse effect on the non-tutored children in the class.

Jellycats4life · 15/01/2025 17:22

thing47 · 15/01/2025 16:22

Not obtuse at all @Jellycats4life a very valid question. In essence, schools (and other authorities) have to say the 11+ exam is untutorable because otherwise the logical conclusion is that tutoring is beneficial.

Once they admit that they’re in a whole world of pain because it’s quite clear to all of us that some people are in a better position to access tutoring than others and therefore the test is inherently unfair. They can’t afford to admit that.

Thanks for the explanation, I understand now 😅

The reason the above never occurred to me is because, personally, I’ve never believed that the 11+ is fair.

But nothing about the education system is fair (and I would include private schools in this) or, indeed, in most other aspects of life. So… get used to it I guess? It’s not fair, so we all have to do our best within the confines of an unfair and unequal society.

I guess where my views might diverge with others in this thread is I don’t believe shutting down grammar schools, and forcing private schools into financial ruin, has a net benefit to society,

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 15/01/2025 17:07

@north51 That's an excellent question!

Those who work in education can confirm / elaborate, but my understanding is that, historically, the 11+ test as we know it now was conceived as an untutorable test, that assesses innate ability and intelligence, regardless of the quality of the teaching a kid may or may not have received at school.

The thinking was, therefore, that children with worse teachers, in a less academic school etc may do less well at an SAT test but should not be penalised at the 11+, precisely because it is untutorable.

I, and many others, view this as utter bullshit, for the reasons already covered.

OP posts:
north51 · 15/01/2025 17:01

Why cant they just use SATs - which everyone does and which the schools prep for - to select for grammar schools? At the end of the day, pupils in grammar schools are going to be taught to sit GCSEs which are far more similar to SATs than an IQ test so the results of those tests should be far more relevant.

The private schools around us set written maths and english papers for their selection process.

It seems mad to create a separate 11+ test - which generates a whole tutoring industry around it - and quite obviously discriminates against those whose families aren't engaged or don't have the funds to pay.

CurlewKate · 15/01/2025 16:50

@thing47 ". In an all-grammar county the DCs are going to take the test anyway, it would be much fairer to let all DCs see what the test contains."

Ah-I think this is where the misunderstanding has happened. They don't all do the test. Only I think about (don't quote me!) half do.

PokerFriedDips · 15/01/2025 16:28

@thing47 in what way will the 50% of a mixed ability class who are of below-average intelligence and ability, who are totally unsuitable for a grammar school education and would definitely fail the 11+ no matter how many prep classes they sit in, benefit from being forced through prep classes that are totally divorced from their current attainment level covering content they aren't ready for? All I can see it achieving would be hammering home to them a firm sense of their own inadequacy. It would be totally unethical.

It equally seems entirely unethical that there is a higher quality of state school that is only accessible to a small demographic. Leaving aside the fact that wealthy families can buy in to a higher chance of success, which is abhorent - imagine if within the NHS there was a separate resource of hospitals reserved only for people with blue eyes, that were an altogether more pleasant place to be treated and to work and had much higher success rates.

thing47 · 15/01/2025 16:22

Not obtuse at all @Jellycats4life a very valid question. In essence, schools (and other authorities) have to say the 11+ exam is untutorable because otherwise the logical conclusion is that tutoring is beneficial.

Once they admit that they’re in a whole world of pain because it’s quite clear to all of us that some people are in a better position to access tutoring than others and therefore the test is inherently unfair. They can’t afford to admit that.

thing47 · 15/01/2025 16:02

That’s not true @PokerFriedDips. There is a certain percentage who will pass easily, and a certain percentage who probably won’t pass regardless of how much help they receive. But by far the biggest proportion will be in and around the middle and many of these would benefit from familiarisation classes.

Instead it is left to outside tutors and parents, as PPs have explained, may not be in a position to access tutoring. In an all-grammar county the DCs are going to take the test anyway, it would be much fairer to let all DCs see what the test contains.

although personally I favour just ditching the 11+, this would partially address the inequality.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 15/01/2025 15:51

@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.

OP posts:
boys3 · 15/01/2025 15:30

https://letstalk.kent.gov.uk/education-strategy-25-30/widgets/107408/documents

The Kent consultation ended in mid December. The link above suggests that the consultation report is available to view in the documents section. Though none of the docs on that linked page as far as I can see actually reference or include it.

would be fascinating to see what the responses were, and how many it received.

Documents | A Strategy for the Future of Education in Kent 2025-2030 | Let’s talk Kent

Update: the consultation has been extended to Sunday 15 December 2024. The strategy aims to respond to the needs of children and young people, their parents and carers, and those in the education profession, while delivering our statutory duties. It is...

https://letstalk.kent.gov.uk/education-strategy-25-30/widgets/107408/documents

Jellycats4life · 15/01/2025 15:08

Because you could easily do whole-class 11+ classes if you wanted to.. It is a very deliberate choice that schools do not do so.

Genuine question - what is the deliberate choice here @thing47? I’m also a bit confused by what @CurlewKate has said about schools maintaining the “untutorable” myth. Not being deliberately obtuse, i just need to have things spelled out to me sometimes 😂

I totally agree that “untutorable” is a myth (and “my child didn’t do much as sniff a revision guide” is a humblebrag).

PokerFriedDips · 15/01/2025 14:46

@thing47 whole class 11+ lessons would be useless for the majority of the class and actively detrimental for some, if the class has a full spectrum of ability range in line with general population distribution. The test is aiming to find the most able 20% so theoretically perhaps the top 25%-30% might benefit from the teaching assuming that luck and practice might mean a better score for someone who would otherwise be just below the cutoff. The additional content taught before the pupils were ready would just be upsetting, confusing and confidence-quashing for those who aren't near the target cohort.

thing47 · 15/01/2025 14:41

Also the argument that is peddled in Bucks is that the non-grammars are 'all.ability' schools and perfectly.capable of catering for the top percentile. Which is a weird argument when you think about it, because if you totally believe that, why would you need different types of.school...?

thing47 · 15/01/2025 14:37

In Bucks they do. You can opt out but very few do - in 2023 (2024 figures not available yet) it was a 90+% uptake.

But of course that completely supports @CurlewKate 's point about the 'untutorable' myth. Because you could easily do whole-class 11+ classes if you wanted to.. It is a very deliberate choice that schools do not do so.

CurlewKate · 15/01/2025 11:05

@SuzieNine "Ah, I assumed that in grammar counties everyone takes the 11+, like SATs"

No-I think about half do-but don't quote me on that. But it really is about the maintainance of the untutorable myth....

PokerFriedDips · 15/01/2025 10:16

The thing is that it would be totally inappropriate for any primary school to dedicate sufficient resource to an activity that only 20% of the pupils will benefit from, to the detriment of the rest, and where nothing equivalent exists that the other 80% can benefit from.

If you were the parent of a child of about 60th centile intelligence/ability would you think it ok for the school to be spending more per child on an elite advantaged group and less on your child?

If there were a range of different kinds of specialist secondary schools, all equally tough to get into but with a range of different skills and attributes being tested for, with only one of those being the grammar, then it would be fair enough for primaries to have an equitable mix of preparation classes with something for everyone. With the system as it is, it is more appropriate for schools to use their resources equitably and for grammar prep to be done on the time and dime that is outside the school's resources, but would be even more appropriate for such advantages to be not able to be bought within the state system and all grammar schools privatised and paid for.

SuzieNine · 15/01/2025 09:49

CurlewKate · 14/01/2025 17:00

@dizzydizzydizzy "probably because primary schools are so busy preparing for SATs and teaching the national curriculum"

Well, it is partly that. Primary schools don't have resources to spare to tutor kids for an exam a minority will take. But it is mostly the maintainance of the myth of the untutorable test.

Ah, I assumed that in grammar counties everyone takes the 11+, like SATs.

CurlewKate · 15/01/2025 09:32

@dyedinthewoolcheeseeater "But I find it odd that this is also the case in counties such as Kent where the secondary modern system is the default. As someone else has said, the 11+ is supposed to be untutorable, a measure of inmate intelligence, which as everyone knows is the biggest piece of bullshit ever"

If primary schools routinely prepared children for the Kent Test, then that piece of bullshit would be exposed for what it is. And the whole edifice would collapse. Also, where would a primary school find the resources to tutor a select group for a non compulsory exam only a minority will take?

dyedinthewoolcheeseeater · 14/01/2025 20:19

Jellycats4life · 14/01/2025 11:46

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.

In a county that doesn't have only grammars and secondary modern, the state primary schools will have to focus on the national curriculum and SATS. They aren't measured by how many of the kids get into grammar schools, so there's no place in their curriculum for it.

But I find it odd that this is also the case in counties such as Kent where the secondary modern system is the default. As someone else has said, the 11+ is supposed to be untutorable, a measure of inmate intelligence, which as everyone knows is the biggest piece of bullshit ever.