The 11+ was a eugenics test to weed out genetically "inferior" children, created by a classicist who falsified his research

@CatchingtheCat How is this a strawman and not communism?

Were you replying to me or to someone else?

If you were replying to me, it's a strawman because I NEVER said nor implied anything which, even with all the bad faith in this world, could possibly remotely be misconstrued as any sort of levelling down.

I advocate a system which does divide kids by ability, but over time, and which offers a diverse range of options for a diverse range of skills.

I fail to understand what that would have to do with communism. Can you kindly explain it to me please?

when designing educational interventions, it is the population that matters not individuals; there will always be individual outliers.

So you consider ca. 1/4 of the kids misclassified as "outliers"?
Out of curiosity, what threshold of misclassification would you be willing to accept before considering a test unreliable? 30%? 40%? 50%?

@FancyBiscuitsLevel
The problem with comparing the results of the Kent test and the year 6 SATs is you presume the same effort is put in for each

So you admit that the notion that these are untutorable tests which assess innate ability is bullshit?

The Kent test is remarkably similar to the SATs (not identical, but similar).
If a kid who has done well in the Kent test loses so much of their supposedly innate ability after just a few months, that to me is a huge question mark on the validity of the test itself. Not to you?

@Araminta1003 What correlation? KS2 passes 70 per cent of kids across the two key measures. The Kent test passes 30 per cent. The Kent test is different multiple choice and reasoning included as well. You aren’t even comparing like for like.

@CatchingtheCat , this possibly answers your question, too:

Again: ca. 1/4 of the kids are misclassified if you look at 11+ vs GCSE

That's quite a lot of kids who, according to the 11+, were academic and should have done well, but didn't, or viceversa. 1/4 is quite the biggie.

There is no oversight on classification accuracy.

A study on North Yorkshire highlighted the random nature of the test:

one-sitting selection processes will be highly sensitive to chance variation in pupil results.
Sometimes less academically capable students will pass the 11-plus and more academic capable students will fail. Society needs to decide how much of this misallocation it can tolerate.

On the Kent Test vs SATs

the English element of Kent Test shows a correlation of 0.62 with reading and 0.60 with grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS) at KS2; both the maths and the reasoning elements of the Kent Test are correlated at 0.68 with the maths KS2.
So, we can say that the Kent Test has low predictive validity for an academic test taken shortly afterwards.
To be clear, we are not suggesting that SATs tests are any more reliable – simply that we have two tests that claim to measure performance in similar domains (i.e. how good is a child at maths and English), and yet they frequently disagree.

@CatchingtheCat So communism? Everyone gets the same wage regardless of personal investment, skill or risk?

Textbook strawman. Yes, I know that the usual suspects will vomit the usual, tired accusation of male entitlement and male aggressiveness etc etc etc
But bullshit remains bullshit regardless of the genitalia of the bullshitter.

Advocating a comprehensive system, which doesn't get rid of selection but carries out a gradual selection over time, still differentiating between more and less academic pupils, is communism? Yawn...

@Barbadosgirl over an issue that, as has been pointed out to you, is peripheral to the issues facing the vast majority of kids in UK state schools.

So what? If you do not want to discuss an issue because you don't consider it important enough, don't discuss, don't engage - who's forcing you? But you cannot shut down debate and say I am not allowed to discuss it just because you think more pressing matters exist.

By the same logic, nothing should ever be discussed, because there will always be a more pressing matter

I would imagine as a result of their socialisation, that women who disagree with them are wrong, are not considering the facts and the data and should JUST LISTEN AND AGREE.

I get it that, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but not everything boils down to sex and sexism.

I have presented data and facts. Facts have this beautiful feature: they do not care about your feelings.
You challenge a fact with other facts. Your feelings are utterly irrelevant, they do not make any argument any more true or false.

E.g. I have presented data and studies on how the 11+ misclassifies ca. 1/4 of the students (vs their GCSE results) and how the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs (taken the same academic year!) is only in the 0.60 ish.

These are facts.

Anyone who wants to challenge them could, I don't know, identify flaws in the studies, present other studies which show the opposite, or explain why my conclusions are wrong and why we should consider a test reliable even despite such low correlation.

You cannot say: "Oh, I disagree, and since you are a man and I am a woman I am entitled to do so and you cannot criticise me".

You are welcome to think what you want, but if what you think is not backed by any evidence I will call you out for it, regardless of your sex and gender.

Perhaps you might want to reflect on just why you are so angry. Is it because someone has told you no? That you or your kids do not meet a standard in one test that would get you into a certain school? Is it because we are not immediately blown away by the supreme logic of your powerful arguments? Either way, it sounds quite like male entitlement.

Ah, yes, the well-trodden path of attacking the person when you cannot challenge their ideas and facts, all the way to implying there must be some hidden agenda, ulterior motives, sour grapes, etc. Is it male entitlement if I dare say that it's pathetic but boringly predictable? Yawn...

Unsubstantiated bullshit angers me.
Especially when it drives important policy.

@RingoJuice Some children may not be identified properly, but the majority will. It’s like, you want to throw out a whole system because of outliers?

If only 1% of the kids were misclassified, I'd be saying that the 11+ is a brilliant test. That's not the case at all. Not even close.

When ca. 1/4 of the kids are misclassified (comparing 11+ vs GCSE) you cannot talk about outliers.

When the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs is only in the 0.60 ish, you cannot talk about outliers.

Do you not see the difference?

In your OP you say IQ is controversial but it really is not

The notion that it is unaffected by the environment (the bs that Burt failed to prove, leading him to falsify his research) has been debunked.

I made the point that professional psychologists cannot administer IQ tests too frequently, because familiarity biases the results. This flies in the face of the "untutorable tests".

I have also repeatedly made the example of a brilliant child who might score 70 untutored, penalised vs the one who might score 65 untutored but 75 after a year of intense tutoring.

I then made numerous evidence-backed observations on how imprecise the test is, and how it varies a lot from area to area, suggesting it's all a bit of a lottery

@Travelmad777 What resources do you see being sucked by grammars out of the comprehensive system?

Non-selective schools in selective areas can have even more difficulties attracting teachers. One hypothesis is that it is less appealing to teach children deemed less academic, than teaching a diverse intake where some will be in the top set and some won't

Another risk is that non-selective schools in selective areas may ignore how inaccurate the 11+ is, and not offer enough challenging options, eg triple science.

My concern is that if all the schools in our area were made into comprehensives, the grammar kids would start to make up a large portion of the vocationally minded schools.

What is a "vocationally minded school"? Let's not forget that ALL kids must take GCSE English and Maths. We do NOT have a system where some kids take their GCSE at 16 and some others learn a trade

There are specialist schools, like the Brit School in Croydon for the performing arts (where the singer Adele went), with admission in Y10, but they are very specialised and competitive schools. They are an exception. And they still have to do their Maths and English GCSEs. Being admitted there is probably much harder than getting into a grammar (of course they test different things).

This would change the dynamics of what was offered at these schools and the children currently enjoying vocational options would have them removed and at least diminished.

Not sure I follow why that needs to be the case.
If you have a grammar and a non-grammar in the same area, and the grammar becomes a comprehensive, why would vocational options be removed?

What is your solution for comprehensive schools being able to provide a wide range of options?

Quite banally, I see many state comps which already do exactly that.
They are not selective, yet divide kids by ability - yet gradually over time. Some offer a combination of BTEC, T-levels and A-levels, for example. Some of their students go to Russell Group Universities, some do apprenticeships. Etc

@BreakingBroken right now there are more challenges than money and what is needed is a whole system overhaul starting with SEN and MH provisions for children who are struggling with our current society and unable to function in the current educational system.

@Araminta1003 To then just blame it all on 11 plus (5% of kids overall left) is just another cheap shot, like the private school VAT was. We have to talk about and deal with the majority (the 90%) and within that the percentage who are struggling.

Ah, yes, the usual whataboutery.

Is one not allowed to have an opinion on the 11+, because there are more pressing matters? By that logic, nothing can ever be discussed or changed because there will always be something more pressing

I bow to your wisdom.
Please provide a list of issues in order of importance.
If someone then asks me for my thoughts on the 11+, I'll be sure to reply that I am not allowed to talk about it, because two random strangers think that more important issues exist.

@BreakingBroken
11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist | Mumsnet
same op same poorly developed thoughts.

If my thoughts are so poorly developed, it should be incredibly easy for you to debunk them.

Can you deny that the 11+ test was created by an advocate of eugenics who falsified his research?

Can you deny that, regardless of the creator, there is still no scientific backing for the test?

Can you show the scientific evidence for why 10 is an appropriate age to test kids?

Can you deny that the huge difference from test to test makes the whole thing a bit of a lottery? Can you deny that, if there were scientific evidence for what a proper test should look like, then there wouldn't be such huge differences from test to test?

How do you explain that the 11+ misclassifies ca 1/4 of the kids and that the correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs is so low?

Unless you can answer the questions above, I'll consider you yet another charlatan who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Hint: if you feel cornered and cannot answer, take some cheap shots with personal attacks. Attacking me because of my genitalia seems a favourite here.

@BreakingBroken there's a certain amount of pull from an environment that is stimulating and bouncing ideas around vs and environment where the children are bouncing off the walls

Sure. But my point is that a comparable environment can be achieved in a good comprehensive which has a diverse intake, then divides kids by ability over time

@Barbadosgirl Oh, he’s male. That makes sense.

Imagine what would happen if a man said: "oh, that poster is a woman, that makes sense". Talk about double standards, right?

I have presented lots of evidence, data, and studies. As usual, those who cannot challenge them resort to attacking the person, including with stupid sexist comments which would get me banned (and rightly so) if I said that about a woman. You do you, I suppose.

@RingoJuice It will be exactly as the same as those who perform well on IQ tests.

For the millionth time, no. Yes, there is a correlation. But it's not strong enough to justify deciding the educational future of a child at 10.
Again, comparing 11+ results vs GCSEs shows ca 1/4 of the kids get misclassified.
The correlation between the Kent test and the Y6 SATs taken the same year is only in the 0.60ish
It's too crude and imperfect an instrument to decide the educational future of a child

Also, we would never accept exam boards with exams which are too different. Ofqual oversees them. No such oversight exists for the 11+. They are all over the place. Some tests are only verbal and non-verbal reasoning, some add English and maths, some have spatial reasoning while some don't, some give you 30 seconds per question while some give you more...

If the 11+ were so scientific, where is the scientific evidence justifying these tests?
Where is the scientific evidence which led one school to give 30 seconds? And where is that which led another school to give more time per question?

Burt falsified his research because he failed to prove his point. Where is the modern research which confirms the science underpinning the 11+?

@RingoJuice Some people think it should reduce inequality, but if you do it correctly, it will only accelerate inequality.

It is true that there are leftist extremists who want to level down and oppose any kind of selection and differentiation. That's not what I advocate. I have explicitly criticised the California nutters who cancelled advanced calculus classes in high schools because not enough black and Hispanic students were taking them.

@Lionfisher I agree. This thread feels like another race to the the bottom type criticism of society, where people at the bottom (by whatever measure) would be doing much better if only the people at the top didn’t do so damn well.

With the greatest respect, you either didn't read what I wrote, or failed to understand it - thus ironically showing a level of text comprehension skills far below what is expected of a child taking the 11+!!!

See above.
What a comprehensive system which divides by ability (but over time) has to do with a race to the bottom, I fail to understand. Maybe you can explain?

The answer is to do it better, not take the opportunity away from people who can do well just because others don’t.

What do you mean by doing it better?

Do you not find that the poor correlation with GCSE results and with Y6 SATs means it's too imperfect a tool to decide the educational future of a child?

Do you not find that the huge differences in the test from school to school suggest that there is no scientific backing for what these tests should look like?

Also, where is the scientific evidence that 10 is an adequate age for this kind of test?