SATS vs 11+ Can you settle a debate for me?

[HeartofTeFiti]

My DH and I are still debating whether our dd could have passed 11+ . This debate running since we got DD’s SAT scores in July. I need more opinions please from wise mumsnetters!

DD’s KS2 SAT scores were 120 SPAG, and 117 Reading and 118 maths, which are obviously good so no debate there. Similar scores in her school “mock” in spring term. She finished the longer tests (except spelling which is read out to them) with ample time to spare and all the way through her state primary was bored in the core subjects which just “took ages to explain to the class” and “just did the same things over and over really slowly”. She would do the extension work on maths but figured it was extra work just to keep the bright kids quiet while the teacher helped the rest and so would often fill the time drawing pictures or reading her book instead. She is quite good at drawing now as a result!

Anyway I digress.

My DH reckons she would have passed 11+ if she is capable of SAT scores like that.

But I said she wouldn’t have passed because everyone else was tutored for 11+ . And to my mind, you can’t draw a relationship between SATs and 11+ as they are very different styles of testing.

FYI ages ago - in the happy times before lockdown - DD attempted a set of 11+ prep books as I wanted her to sit the exam but only if she wanted to do it herself. At that time in Y4 she was astonishingly good at NVR, fair at maths, poor at comprehension. Then we gave up because she prefers playing to puzzles and tests, and then lockdown was hellish for us!

So help me settle the debate: Is it possible to conclude a child could have passed 11+ based on SATs? Or is the difference all about Tutoring so that you extend beyond national curriculum and learn exam technique?

Why don’t you get her to sit a 12+ and you can have a bet on whether she passes that instead.

Its impossible to tell whether your DD would have passes the 11 plus. She clearly had a good chance, but maybe without tutoring she wouldn’t have known everything she needed to by the time the test was sat, maybe she’d have had a bad day, maybe she’d have passed but not scored highly enough to be offered a place, maybe she’d have passed one schools test but not another’s. There are so many possibilities that you’ll never really know.

I don't think it's necessarily about tutoring. My nephew was tutored and didn't get in and I know a few people who weren't who did get in. I think a lot can depend on the amount of children doing the test and the amount of places available. I don't really think SATs can be a way of knowing either. Basically I don't think there's anyway of knowing unless she actually did the test. I'm not sure whether to get my son to do the test or not but we won't be getting tutor we can't afford one and I don't want him to get in that way as he might struggle when he's there.

My dd had similar SATs scores and passed 11+ for a super selective. But we did do exam practice with her (including a mock) of about an hour a week.

My guess would be that, with some practice on exam technique and format, your dd would have passed. Without that practice, it depends if she’s the type to go into an unfamiliar environment and perform very well, or if she’s more the sort to panic (as most 10yos would).

Might you consider grammar for A levels?

Depends massively on the grammars in question. I live in deepest East Kent, where over a quarter of children will go on to grammar school. She’d probably have had a good chance here with a fairly small amount of work on practice papers. If you’re talking about a super selective the situation is rather different.

Not sure why you're debating this after the fact. If you'd have wanted her to do the 11+ it's a bit late now. Unfortunately hindsight is a wonderful thing and you'd have had to run the risk she wouldn't pass.

FWIW the 11+ where I live is sat 9 months before the SATS and it covers the whole Y6 curriculum (particularly relevant for maths). It also has a completely different style of question -hence the reliance on tutoring- and the exam conditions are more intense. Ours is sat in the local grammar with 1000's of other kids (including some that rock up in private school uniforms and boater hats for added intimidation) compared to SATs being delivered in a known environment (school). IIRC some elements of the SATs are teacher assessed over several pieces of work- the 11+ is absolute in just 2 hours.

IMHO parents who don't put their child in for the 11+ can't pass judgment on the prep that goes into it. If you can afford tutoring but don't give it you're effectively sending your child into an unlevel playing field. To level the playing field you have to throw money at a tutor knowing full well that a kid from a poorer family might lose their chance because of it. It's not an easy decision but before it becomes a "if they are tutored to get in they'll struggle" debate- this is absolutely not true for most. My DD1 is at a grammar and 90% of her peers were tutored or have teacher parents. It's the right environment for her but probably not for DD2 (actually 'cleverer' but would hate the single sex education and lack of praise).

A lot of tutoring is to give kids familiarity with the format of the paper and the questions. It's very hard to teach non-verbal reasoning. You can practise and improve but in my experience you either have that sort of brain or you don't!

Did she want to go to a grammar school? That is the only question really worth considering at this stage. As others say she could sit the 12+ if she might want to transfer but you will never know as they are different tests sat at different times.

She possibly could have passed the 11+.but you made a choice not to put her in for the tests so that is that.

No doubt she will shine at the school that she goes to.

In terms of tutoring, we paid for tutors for our DC to level the playing field a little because we live in an area with lots of prep schools that start preparing for the 11+ in Year 3. But several of their friends got in just with parental support. Our area has Grammars not super selectives though. They might be different.

I am a primary teacher. SATs assess the national curriculum which is taught in state schools. The 11+ is a completely different style of assessment. There will be some crossover with reading comprehension and maths skills but no practice of the verbal/non-verbal reasoning. In Year 6 your DD will have done many practice SATs papers to get used to the style of question. It's very hard to pass the 11+ without similar test preparation which is why most kids are tutored. Also why the 11+ is an archaic test. In areas with grammar schools I don't see why they don't just use SATs results.

Unless they are ridiculously bright, they will need extra prepping for it. You left it too late.

There is tutoring and there is tutoring.
Some kids seem to start being tutored in year 5 and maybe 4. That is pretty intensive in my opinion.

My dd had a tutor for an hour a week for the 6 weeks of the summer holiday at the end of year 5, plus one more lesson the week before the October exam and she passed for an out of catchment place in a super selective. She had similar SAT'S results to your dd.
My dd happened to just get NVR, her tutor said that was a distinct advantage as it is something that can't easily be taught.

Don’t believe the line that you can’t easily teach NVR. My dd scored consistently in the 90s on her CATs (years 5, 6, and 7). Which, for the uninitiated, is below average (the shame of admitting this on MN ). She scored 140 in her 11+ NVR paper with a few sessions from a good tutor, who focussed on how to pass the Kent Test, as the style of the NVR for this test is different from the CAT papers.

Did she struggle at the grammar school? No. She has also graduated this year with a first from a RG.

Depends where you are in the UK, I think. I get the impression from reading MN that it’s very competitive in London and the SE. Here in the Midlands absolutely she would pass the 11+ exams at most selective schools with those scores, and even with a lot lower. Tutoring definitely not the norm here, and I know of only a handful of children who had it to pass their exams (and, they were super bright, super motivated children who would have almost certainly have passed without).

We are Bucks and DD passed 11+ comfortably this year. She got 116,117,115 and wasn't tutored at all. Her elder siblings had similar and weren't tutored. So yes, it is highly possible she would have passed in this area.

As pp said, they're completely different tests.

They are high SATs scores so it shows she has a good understanding but I don't know of any child who would pass the 11+ without some tutoring. Not because they needed to be taught the content but because they need familiarity with the type of questions asked. Nothing similar to it is taught in school.

Technically my DD didn't have a tutor for her 11+ but she did do practice tests via bondonline. I would count her as being tutored as she did need help to pass despite being at Greater Depth in everything.

To be honest though, it's a moot point as you didn't enter her for the test.

So many replies thanks! Big range of responses. It’s geographically nuanced, isn’t it? Which I find interesting.

Why are DH and I still debating it? That’s a good question @prepared101. Mainly because we are bored, and if we debate politics we argue! Partly because we have a younger child and recently inherited quite a lot of money so we could afford to relocate and make some different choices for him. Maybe consider a selective independent school for DD’s Y9. As I type I realise I’m out of my depth - I’ve no clue really! I was in a good state comp then Oxbridge, DH was in a dreadful state comp but excelled at sport so managed to get a good spot at Loughborough and then did a Masters and landed a good professional career. DD is able but not brilliant, DS seems less bright but is only 4 so a bit soon to judge.

DH and I grew up in non-grammar areas both in anti-grammar families so we were very late to the idea of tutoring being a possibly sensible thing. Initially I assumed it was akin to cheating! Can I say that on here without being lynched? Hastily adding: I did learn (mainly from MN actually) that tutoring isn’t cheating as the style of testing at 11+ isn’t like schoolwork, and you sometimes need to cover parts of the national curriculum early.

We are Berks/Bucks border and at one stage considered moving to a grammar school catchment. Decided not to buy the house, especially when DD refused to be tutored (she had one friend doing intensive coaching and three doing less intensive tutoring and they told her it was awful).

I know the Berks super selectives like Kendricks use 11+ style exams but you need to sail past the pass mark and we decided our DD wouldn’t be good enough or enjoy that kind of academic focus.

DD loves her choice of state secondary school and we are delighted as she can walk there and has local friends going too - it is a good school without being stellar academically. So we have our happy ending already!

I would support trying another school for A levels but it will be DD’s choice, not mine.

To add: it saddens me that money makes such a difference; that tutoring is necessary at all. And now we have money, I’m overwhelmed by the choices that were and still are available to us. Should I pay to give my child the chance of a more academic education? After all I paid for her to learn gymnastics, not satisfied by state PE lessons. And if everyone else is doing it, did I let her down by failing to organise tutoring?

DH would have paid for Y5 tutoring for DD except I put my foot down and said No, only if she wants to - because it is about HER childhood, HER preferences. And not about us trying to proving to family and friends that she is capable of getting into a grammar or selective school. That’s the nub of our debate, I suppose.

TBH if your daughter refused tutoring a grammar probably wouldn't be the right environment for her anyway. Compliance and competitive are two common personality traits of DD1 and most of her friends.

@prepared101yes I agree (I agreed wholeheartedly with your first post too). I think you are now high up on my list of wise mumsnetters. I keep asking myself what my mum would have said, if she was still alive, and she’d say: happiness is what gets you where you want to be in life, not exam certificates.

Enjoy your inheritance- I work in HR and to be honest if your kids are polite, half sensible and can use a bit of initiative school will make little differences to their chances in life. You can't change what's already done and sounds like your DD is happy with her school which is so important- I have seen kids at DD's school suffer with their mental health yet their parents won't move them from the school for their own (misplaced) pride.

Use the money to improve their cultural capital- theatre trips, sports games, visiting other countries.

@basilmint the 11+ parent competitiveness in grammar areas is insane. If they switched to allocating grammar places on SATS results, then not only would parents just switch to tutoring in SATS-style papers instead, thus still retaining their advantage (and it's arguably a lot easier to tutor a child up to 100% in SATS papers than it is in 11+ papers, making it much harder to distinguish between candidates), but the parents would also exert massive pressure on the primaries to focus relentlessly on SATS at the expense of all else - and plenty of primaries would be quite susceptible to that pressure, as they would want good grammar pass rates in order to get bums on seats and fill their places. The one advantage of the current system (ie having a very different style of exam for the 11+) is that parents don't generally perceive a strong link between the school and their child's 11+ result (it's a different story in prep schools) - which means that primary schools themselves are largely spared the 11+ pressure, and the large number of children who choose not to take the test can go about their education largely unaffected. That's the case where I am, anyway.

Agree with your points, @mullitover

Also, SATs are designed primarily to test teachers/schools - to show that they have taught the full curriculum well. SATs are fully tutorable, as they should be, because they are looking to demonstrate that teachers have taught the students all they need to know to answer the questions. For a bright child who has received good teaching at school, SATs are straightforward, and many bright children will receive close to top marks. Of course, SATs are also accessible to (almost) all children, so most of the questions are easy. As the OP's daughter found, the time allowance on SATs is very generous.

The 11 plus is designed to find the brightest children. Test providers such as CEM and GL try to test intrinsic ability and discourage tutoring (although tutoring is still rife in some areas.) Questions are designed to be tackled with tight timings to test a child's ability to make quick connections and apply a wider understanding and common sense. Verbal reasoning questions identify the children that have a wide vocabulary (which is gained through reading, not teaching), comprehension and inference.

SATs and the 11 plus are quite different.

They are completely different types of test.

DD didn't do SATS due to Covid, but I would have pulled her anyway as she would have done extremely badly (very severe dyslexia) and that would have followed her all through secondary.

Her secondary had all applicants sit banding tests - which were basically NVR. DD aces NVR and ended up in top sets for everything.

However, her SEN means yes, good thing she's in classes with the academic kids, but bad thing because her weaknesses mean she needs a lot more support than you would get in a face paced 'grammar set'. Would never have sat her for 11+ for that reason even though she'd have probably got the marks. (Happily teachers at secondary spotted the disconnect and she's now in classes that are the right level for her.)

It is not remotely necessary to tutor to get an able child into a grammar school. What you did - buying books for them to practice the style of question and timing of the papers, assuming your child is interested in going through the process, is more than sufficient. They do not need someone to teach them how to suck eggs… If your child doesn’t get through on that basis, then so what? There are clearly plenty of good schools around your way, anyway, and you can make them feel better about not getting in by telling them that the children who did get in were probably tutored 😁. There’s no going back from the hit to the self-esteem if you are heavily tutored and still don’t succeed, on the other hand.

In your case, imvho, there was nothing to lose from giving it a go if your dd had had any interest in giving it a go, and no need to suck any potential joy out of the process by turning it into a tiresome, expensive, time-wasting and money-wasting slog that no child would willingly sign themselves up for. As for whether SATS results can tell you anything about whether thy could have passed their 11 plus: definitely not if you tutored them for those, too! Other than that - only mildly indicative, as what they show you is that they are brighter than average, were taught reasonably well at their primary school, and are not too phased by tests. They are not testing the same things as the 11+.

Your daughter would have passed the 11+ with those SATs scores. I teach y5&6 in your area and kids that score that highly are clearly very intelligent and therefore will pass the 11+ with little extra input/tutoring. We can tell from about year 3 who will likely pass. I’ve taught plenty of kids who have not had tutoring and passed. Yes, you need to be familiar with VR and NVR but naturally bright children pick these up very quickly. VR is mostly about vocab and NVR, whilst it can be improved, you either see it or you don’t really. The maths at 11+ is hard simply because it covers bits of the y6 curriculum and is sat in the first week of year 6. But maths is only 25% of the marks and if a child was really secure in everything up to y5, they’d probably pass anyway even not knowing algebra, ratio etc.