Why not make grammar entry fairer?

[belladonna22]

My kids are still young so I have no direct experience with entry exams for grammar schools, but why is it that the exams seem to cover topics that children haven’t yet covered in most state schools?

If their (stated) purpose is to enable the best and brightest to attend, why do they make it more or less essential to obtain private tutoring, thus tilting the scales in favour of better resourced and informed families? If Labour were serious about improving access to education, wouldn’t one policy be for grammars to limit exams to topics most children will be familiar with at that point in their schooling?

You’re mistaken on the content of these exams.

Better resourced and informed families will always find a way to elevate their children’s chances in a selective school entry exam.

That's exactly what the grammar in South Essex do.

That’s entirely possible, I’m just going by what I’ve read and heard!

Because grammar schools are intrinsically unfair and elitist.

How silly to want a fair and non-elitist system for selecting who gets into the elite.

Labour want to scrap grammar schools altogether. They tried to do so before but couldn't because the relevant powers came under Local Authority control so individual councils could choose not to comply. They will not reform grammar entry but they may try to abolish the selectivity more thoroughly.

For every child who succeeds in getting a place at a school for themost able 10%, there are 9 children who get allocated to a school that is more challenging, where children are less likely to thrive or meet their full potential or have their talents found and recognised. Labour is on the side of those 9.

I thought the 11+ was essentially an IQ test of sorts.
I never took one so I am not certain.

Verbal and non verbal reasoning aren’t really covered at school (though a wider vocabulary might help with VR) - doing all the Bond books or GL papers etc will help with these, no tutor needed.

Yes, the tests are supposed to be around verbal / non verbal reasoning, they were originally designed to try to identify intelligence outside of learning particular topics at school. Problem is that, like any test, you can coach to the test. That’s what happens with all the coaching of kids to pass it.

My 27 year old son passed as did I without an ounce of tutoring - - my sons and my friends included loads of kids from working class families- yes it’s a bit unfair that well off families whose kids aren’t over bright can be coached- but life isn’t always fair - if you are very bright and working class you won’t need coaching though anyway

11+ exams are not the same nationwide, they vary by district.
Some need tutoring, others don't really
The CSSE content is aligned to the national curriculum & is a Maths and English paper. Some familiarisation with exam technique is useful but it can be comfortably passed by a naturally clever kid who has taken in all their school work.

My DD passed the 11 plus without any tutoring. You’re right that a lot of the content hasn’t been covered at primary school, but it was easy to find out what was covered and the grammar school had past papers available on the website.

The exams are very different nowadays. Most would struggle to pass without doing past papers etc.

I agree and there’s an easy ish way of doing it - move sats to year 5 and have them cover content only up until Christmas of year 5. Then anyone living in a grammar area that scores greater depth in at least one area of the English and maths gets put into a random ballot for a grammar place. Guaranteed places for any vulnerable children who score both too.

No-one in my family had tutoring (over the past 60 years) - we all went to grammar schools. Yes, tutoring can get borderline kids over the line, but the top academic kids will get through no matter what.

Personally, I think that if we're championing specialised academies (sports, music, tech - I've seen all of these suggested as a good thing), then I don't see why we can't keep the grammars. If there's nothing wrong with giving kids who have sports talent facilities that bring that talent on, I can't see why there's an issue with doing the same for kids with academic strengths.

Thing is, NVR is easy to teach. My eldest child got 90 in a Year 5 CAT NVR. She then scored 141 (highest possible mark) in the Kent Test NVR following a fairly small amount of tutoring (and a load of illicit past papers - thanks, tutor).

The VR papers are heavily vocabulary based. I suspect that’s more difficult to teach, and really benefits children from more educated backgrounds.

The maths papers are particularly unfair, and could easily be made more fair. They include Year 6 maths - for an exam taken in the first couple of weeks of that year. The questions taken from the Year 6 curriculum tend to be easy if you’ve been taught them. For all but the most mathematically gifted, however, they are tricky if they are the first time you’ve seen them.

The English paper does seem to tie up with standard reading comprehension exercises.

All papers include a large element of speed. Children who’ve been tutored understand the need to get through all the paper. Children who haven’t rarely complete them.

In short, tutoring makes a massive difference.

Locally, 11+ is not ‘taught’ in schools.

11+ is much more of an intelligence test and learning characteristics, around verbal and non verbal reasoning. Much about spotting patterns and applying them.

( Actually the TV show 1% Club reminds me of the 11+ questions).

I reminded my DC’s of how to do a test ( they had sat Y2 SATS) - leave a question and move on, go back through in the last minute and make a guess rather than leave a blank.

Other than that they always read widely. There is no way to tutor or revise the breadth of vocabulary needed, especially at the last minute.
As a family we always completed crosswords, sudoku and other word and number puzzles together, developing logic and pattern.

I moved jobs post divorce and ended up in a grammar school catchment. Not something familiar to me or understood. Not something I considered when they were 1 and 3!

They scored enough marks to be selected for the local grammar and we were in catchment so they got a place.

Forever grateful for their education as a single parent where stats show they are more likely to not succeed.

All papers include a large element of speed. Children who’ve been tutored understand the need to get through all the paper. Children who haven’t rarely complete them.
In short, tutoring makes a massive difference.

IME, preparation makes a massive difference. This can be done by parents or tutors.

11+ exams are not the same nationwide, they vary by district.
And the acceptance rates vary, too. Kent is something like 30%; Birmingham used to be really low (?less than 5%) until they stopped those from outside the LEA from applying.

But most of England doesn't have the 11+ so moving SATs to Yr 5 is daft.
(Personally I wish they'd just scrap SATs)

VR is ultimately more coachable than NVR. You improve a lot more initially from learning the types of puzzles and questions they give in NVR but the improvements tail off fairly soon. With VR, OTOH, you can study word lists for years and that will continue to help.

True @Needmorelego maybe just keep the tests as they are, forbid non n/c content, set a grammar passmark and make it random ballot (with reserved places for the vulnerable) for everyone else. That would be much fairer.

but then I always think a truly humane system would take the bottom 30% at 11 and pour resource in to raise them up. The top 30% will always do ok.

@SolidarityCone I personally think if we are going to have different types of schools the age you do the test should be 13 (and the schools starting from Yr 10) and there should be technical/vocational schools along side the academic grammars.
But that's a whole other thread.....

11+ is a blatant piece of social engineering to make sure the middle-class kids get to go to a 'better' school and keep the riff-raff out.

Totally agree. In my area there is less than 2% on FSM at the grammar school yet 36% at the nearby comp. So clearly something isn’t quite right.

Definitely feels that way in my town