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

@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.

@Crispynoodle in NI, do the primaries/juniors help with 11+ preparation?

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

Totally agree.

I went to a grammar. My kids go to a comp.

They’ve performed/are performing overall much better than I did academically. And against a background of pupils that are more reflective of the overall mix of society. They have a broader curriculum and so many more extra curricular options than I ever did. They also don’t have the arrogance about them that I did, feeling I was “above” other kids - until a good dose of real life knocked that out of me, thankfully.

The problem is that not all comps are excellent comps like the one my kids go to. If they were, we wouldnt need this discussion.

I am 100% sold on the comprehensive system having been exposed to both, where the comprehensive is well managed.

Oh and just to add, one of my kids has ADHD so we’re in the SEN mix.

I doubt your experience is representative of the needs of SEN families.

I never said it was. Don’t be obtuse.

What I did say is that autistic kids like mine, who are academically able and have special educational needs (known as twice exceptional in some circles) invariably don’t have their needs met at school. At all. This is because primary schools and comps alike have to focus their attention and resources on those with the highest support needs. Which is understandable but not exactly fair or ideal.

I am not sure there is anything in grammar schools that makes them intrinsically better for these kids.

Of course they are, for the obvious reason that they are not so busy dealing with kids with complex behaviour and learning needs that they forget about the quiet, high-masking, highly anxious, studious kids. They are such an overlooked group - full of potential but generally ignored with a shrug and a chorus of “they’re fine”.

@Jellycats4life not every school suits every child. Some comprehensives are excellent for children with SEN. Some grammars are appalling. Using the expression "throwing to the lions" to describe comprehensive education in general is what I was talking about.

I live in NI my youngest did the 11+ (she's 28 now so ages ago) and I was delighted at the time. We are surrounded by grammar schools and I knew that here (in NI) the peer pressure to work hard always do homework etc would be apparent in the grammar schools. Having said that no way would I have let her do it without tutoring and eleventy billion practise tests. In the primary schools here they start practising for the transfer tests in P5 2 years before they actually sit it. A massive part of me thinks they should be banished but a tiny bit is so glad she passed it and is working in a great job now

@SuzieNine"Can someone explain why in grammar school counties the primary schools make no effort to prepare children for the tests required to get into secondary school?"

Because the tests are supposed to be unpreparable for. They are supposed to be tests a child can go into cold and either pass or fail on basic ability or absence thereof. This myth has to be maintained otherwise it becomes obvious that it's largely a test of social class, not intelligence.

their own child would not "survive" if they were "thrown to the lions" in a comprehensive school......

It’s true for many kids though, whether you want to listen or not. My daughter is autistic and her primary school essentially refused to accept that an academically able, anxious, high masking autistic kid was deserving of support. They wouldn’t put her on their SEN register, even when I asked.

I knew the same would happen with the SEN department in a comp. Now grammar school SEN departments are almost exclusively devoted to supporting girls like mine. So many ND kids fall apart at secondary but mine is gently scaffolded and doing well. I can’t think of a better environment for these overlooked kids who are too autistic for the mainstream system but too academic for the SEN system.

@ParentOfOne I absolutely agree with you. I haven't read the whole thread I'm afraid, because I'm not in the mood for reading people explaining that the 11+ is the best thing ever for social mobility and how their own child would not "survive" if they were "thrown to the lions" in a comprehensive school......

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.

Can someone explain why in grammar school counties the primary schools make no effort to prepare children for the tests required to get into secondary school? This strikes me as completely bizarre. If a county has decided to keep a grammar/secondary modern system, then surely it should organise its education system to support that system all the way through?

Living in a non-grammar county, the primary/junior schools make every effort to prepare children for the next stage of their education - I find it extraordinary that does not appear to happen in grammar counties.

I see. So you're going to neither report my posts to attempt to substantiate your false accusation of me being a liar, nor have the decency to retract it.

Case closed.

Fortunately these days, further on in my career, in my current role I don't have to bother myself with recruitment processes anymore.

I think it's worth noting though that I have rarely seen a thread here with such an aggressive approach from an OP, ostensibly asking for opinions and then refusing to listen to or consider any opposed to their own (or even read them properly, in most cases, requesting repeatedly information that had already been provided which usually indicates a deliberate refusal to take on board other perspectives). And very little constructive discussion or engagement. These sorts of behaviours indicate the precise opposite of the types of characteristics we were looking for in addition to academic ability i.e. flexibility of thought, adaptability, interpersonal skills, objectivity and a sense of perspective, logical reasoning, the ability to grasp the nuances of concepts and think through complex long-term outcomes, assess things objectively without clouding decisions with emotion, and fundamentally to behave with basic respect for others so that they didn't pose a huge reputational risk.

And frankly, HR and "recruiters" know nothing about recruiting decent candidates. Recruiters are trying to place people wherever they can to make money. They view people as a commodity. The candidate is their product, not their client. Obviously such people have dubious morals and aren't always acting in the candidate's (or their client's!) best interest. They simply want the commission for placing people, they do not care if they are the best candidate or not, or whether it is a good fit. Just that a contract is signed so they get paid.

As for HR, they should be left only to deal with contract negotiations etc. They have no idea about the expertise required for technical or skilled roles because by definition the role is outside their skillset, so the further they are kept away from the recruitment process, the better.

Hence why companies/ firms use a range of tools and exercises and tests to assess candidates across a number of areas of skill, appropriate to the role, and if they know what they are doing the process is administered by the senior management of the department/ business area who are actually recruiting the employee because they know what to look for.

The idea that you think some clueless person from a recruitment firm or HR department is a business expert or has any sway in which candidates get places on competitive graduate schemes or on what basis these decisions are made is laughable.

@ThisPageIsBlank Respectfully, I do not believe you.

I really don't care whether you do.

However, I do resent being called a liar on a public forum. If you are going to openly accuse me of lying then report my post to Mumsnet and I'll happily provide them the name of the firm I worked for and they'll be able to verify it from LinkedIn etc.

Who do you think you are to accuse other people of being liars because you dislike their answers to your (rather impertinent and rude) personal questions that attempted to disparage their views because you believe you must know far, far more than everyone else?

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.

Ummm... well, for a number of years I conducted final interviews for graduate scheme applicants to make the final recommendations on who to award the places to for one of the largest international firms in my sector. This involved reviewing their profiles, initial applications, the scores from the initial psychometric testing and non-verbal reasoning tests used to sift the applications, their performance in group exercises and the observations and notes from their first one 1:1 interview with a more junior member of management. We had several hundred applicants per place, and people could not apply at all without meeting stringent academic criteria.

The timed non-verbal reasoning tests were extremely useful for distinguishing between the innate abilities of a cohort of young people all of whom had achieved top grades throughout school and university.

What's your direct experience in corporate recruitment, OP?

Things have changed in the decades since, believe me

I did it years ago. No one was ever tutored.

Anecdote not data but one of mine has done pretty much that @ParentOfOne . Missed 11+ by a margin, went to a then not terribly good secondary modern, now has a first-class Masters in infectious diseases from one of the most famous institutions in the world in that field. She specialises in vector-borne diseases and some of her Masters dissertation has been published as part of a wider study.

Turns out she is a talented laboratory researcher. Not something that would have been obvious at 10.

Rotors in london are up to £75 an hour I think now. So that plus whatever the other three hours cost. Great for them but impossible for most. And then a lot will carry on with tutors 'to keel up'