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

The overall education system is good. Primary works well for many children and academically at least, plenty of children do make progress, settle at school, enable their parents to work, have friends and a community. And on a happiness index are fine. School lunches and exercise at school not ideal, but otherwise overall fine. The curriculum there is rather challenging too.

It is 11-16 that something seems to be going very wrong for a lot of children, including those with not the highest needs, but more minor needs which I reckon they are dealing with better in other countries - which comes as a surprise because traditionally England was seen as SEND understanding/friendly.
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. That is SEND and primarily those for whom GCSEs are just too inaccessible. Having had several kids go through GCSEs and 10 or more with high achievers I can firmly say the new form GCSEs are extremely content heavy and really quite challenging for many kids. Hence the high failure rates and high rates of failure on retakes. This and SEND needs sorting. I am sure absolutely everyone in charge knows this as it is incredibly obvious to pretty much everyone. So all the diatribes against the privileged few in grammars (academic privilege I mean) and private schools (mostly economic privilege) are just a massive and pointless deflection of the underlying issues that need sorting out urgently. I mean would it be that difficult for lots of state secondaries to have hubs with tailored qualifications and timetables for those who cannot follow the full standard GCSE curriculum. If you gave most schools plenty of cash per pupil I reckon they could sort this quite quickly. They are used to working wonders.

Sixth Form again, if you make the basic grades demanded, is quite OK for many as well.

Oh, he’s male. That makes sense.

I have seen no evidence he is up for a debate. Rather a dogmatic rant and white lipped rage at anyone who disagrees with him.

I just assumed from the posts this is a very angry/bitter person who either did not pass or whose kids did not pass and now wants to rant at the world about how the system (which is now a tiny part of the overall education system) is wrong.

if you think this is bad wait until you find out about some people paying for their kids to go to school with smaller class sizes and more resources.

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.

But you’re right we do need outstanding people from our education system. They are the great minds who will go on to improve and change the world. I don’t care where they come from as long as we find them and their talents are used well. And if they’re not, our country is over because we will be competing with people from around the world who are encouraged to progress through the system… systems which are far more cut throat than the 11+.

I like the 11+.

Done well, it give kids a chance to start secondary path on a strong footing and identify areas of strength and weakness. Too many people don’t take their first exams until GCSE, which puts them at a disadvantage to those who have more test experience (including revision). The problem is the parents who have unrealistic expectations of their child. I think it should be complimented by wider choice in subjects and streaming. If done well I think it can be valuable, if done badly it’s not.

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

This whole thread has been darkly fascinating and really gets to what is the purpose of education?

Some people think it should reduce inequality, but if you do it correctly, it will only accelerate inequality. You want your top performers to do very well, these will be the cohort forwarding your society. It isn’t hard to identify them. Any teacher knows the top performers. It will be exactly as the same as those who perform well on IQ tests.

you might like this scholarly report. genetics

www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0019-8

this statement is totally untrue @ParentOfOne But the same kids would have probably achieved similar results elsewhere, too.
teens are particularly influenced by their peers, that bright student placed in an environment with multiple challenges will not reach their full potential if for no other reason than the staff will not be able to nurture their talent all while managing low level disruption.

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. even if the same material is covered there will be more depth and breadth in an accelerated environment.
not to mention the social contagion of leaving school early, sexual harassment and behaviors such as smoking/drinking/drugs and sex.

11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist | Mumsnet
same op same poorly developed thoughts.
the current educational options with a mish mash of circa 1945 grammar schools, 9 elite public schools, independents, state primary and state secondary schools is like a badly put together patch work quilt (please feel free to expand on this list as there is loads I've missed).
you might be able to envision a better system for the future, but 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.

the problem isn't the 11+ or grammar schools. a child with totally untapped raw talent most likely will not be spotted until well into his teen years if ever. a poorly fed child, who had little stimulation or nurturing is unlikely to be a shining star until they leave home and are independent. their family history and environment holds them back not the exam. would you like a dystopian world where 3 year olds are removed entirely from parents and fully taken care of by the state with the state testing streaming and choosing their profession for them.

the number of young people who have athletic physical builds could be easily picked out of a crowd and with some biometric measurements streamed into the right sport for their body type but it won't mean much if the children are unhappy. there is no guarantee that the children will have the right mental drive or desire to medal at the olympics.

it all sounds a bit communist circa 1970's.

@ParentOfOne I think my post got lost in the mix. Any thoughts?

Well at Oxford 50% of students are state educated of those most attended grammar school going to an ordinary comprehensive makes it much less likely you will attend the UKs best Universities.

I suppose I would question whether an entrance test can be right or wrong.
The schools want a cohort of bright a academic kids, and the 11+ gives them that, so in that sense it works for the schools.

I have 2 bright girls, one who I would say was very suited to the 11+ style test (and just passed it) the other less so (a deep thinker rather than a quick thinker). If my youngest doesn't go to a grammar it's the school's loss frankly. But that wouldn't make me think the test was wrong, its doing what it aims to do and selects a certain type of kid.

Itr is a complx issue. My parents did well because they were bright so passed the 11+ in areas where just about no one going to state school was rich like Sunderland (North Yorkshire mentioned above where my siblings lives where someone said results can be good is not NE England of course and it has pretty smart places like York and Harrogate in it). I suppose to an extent they were moved into a different world of things like latin, classical music and a chance at uhniversity which those who didn't pass had less chance of getting (although poor working class adults working through night school to get educated and learn about opera etc etc definitely also existed then, post WWII).

In other area it may have been different.

The non selective schools schools which stream I think the Sutton Trust found did as well as areas of the country with grammars in A levels over all.

What annoys me is that some parts of the same nation of the UK have grammar schools and others do not and yet half UK households pay income tax so I don't see why some areas have something different - it woudl be like saying London or Newcastle won't get an NHS and others places will. In a state system having differences based on where you live is a bit much. I also object that those in Wales does not pay prescription charges and those in Scotland no university fees. These things divide the UK rather than bringing us together.

I agree. I'm simply querying whether kids at these super selective schools really want it- Andre Agassi and Stephi Graf were both highly successful tennis players but never wanted it, but were pushed into it by their parents, and I just wonder how it pans out with highly academic schools.

Surely brilliant mathematical minds will rise to the top anyway? Aren't these schools better at uplifting more middling students?

No one was "misclassified". The PP didn't get a high enough mark on a test so didn't go to grammar school. The fact that they went on to get good grades is great, but doesn't show the test was wrong.

Research clearly shows that intelligence is not fixed and so cannot be judged at a set age.

Grammar school enthusiasts can believe what ever they want but hard evidence is available for anyone to access.

I failed the 11+ and went to an awful secondary modern. I left school believing I wasn’t clever.

I was fortunate to go back into education as an adult. I thought I would try and study my GCSEs. I felt like an imposter but I persevered. I was utterly astonished to achieve As in every subject. I went on to do two A levels in a year. Again I achieved As. I now have a diploma, a degree and a post grad in education.

The 11+ is not a reliable test. It’s flawed in every respect.

Oh, and DD2 did psychology AS level. The first thing the teacher did was to ask every student to tell the class their GCSE grades. DD2 got 6 A*s and 7 As (because she did the triple sciences as separate subjects). That can’t have done the confidence of some students much good?

Yes, but our experience was not as per the title of your thread - that the 11 plus was a eugenics test. As I said, working class children did get to grammar schools and benefited enormously from it, in terms of social mobility.

It wouldn’t be my experience today, because my LA is all comprehensives. What I did see, as a pp has said, was that Year 6 SATS and even more so, cognitive ability tests in Year 7 were used to inform the setting. So, I can’t really see the difference between cognitive ability testing and the 11 plus?

How is being put in the bottom sets materially different to children’s self confidence from failing the 11 plus? Or, even in a mixed ability set, surely the lowest achievers could see other academically more able children getting everything right, where they struggled?

I had a DD1 with complex SEN, who felt a failure at 4, because she was way behind the mainstream children - and she ended up with psychotherapy under CAMHS.

“But if a cycling advocate drives to work because there is no cycle path and no public transport, they are not hypocrites, they are simply playing the hand they are dealt. Same thing here.”

Not for me @ParentOfOne - I would wear a high vis vest and still cycle!

Yeah but we need people like this to actually push progress and innovation forward.