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?

Only on Mumsnet 90% of children did zero prep and aced the 11+. Just naturally academic and bright, Unreflective of the rest of society.
Researchers should study them lol

You’re not mistaken, certainly not with some of the grammar entrance exams.

In my area no one I've come across has got in without tutoring or extensive prep with a parent and the entire Y6 curriculum needs to be known and applied at speed. You need to get 85% of the questions right and you need to answer at a rate of <30secs per question so there's little chance even a bright child could work out something they hadn't already encountered. 3 children in DD's class passed this year which is the normal proportion.

In other areas it's more like 20% who pass and there are some who can do it without tutoring

The whole point of Grammar schools, and exams for that matter is that they are discriminatory. If passing were accessible to every kind of child with every kind of learning need and background then they'd be comps? I think it's a brutal and unfair system but my DS is flourishing at his grammar and I'm glad he did the test and that we pushed really hard for him to work for it.

Lower socio-economic groups have lower mean IQs. Uncomfortable perhaps, but true.

Grammar schools are intended to entrench privilege, that's their purpose, so that's why the entry requirements are structured the way they are.

Yes there's a really interesting study just waiting to be done!

@PoonuAnd everyone’s kids get 9X9s at GCSE! 🤣

I'd imagine for every 10 children sitting the 11 plus 2 are so naturally gifted they'll get in the top half and two not -so they won't.

The scrabble for the other six rankings can always be gamed by coaching to the test. If nothing else it minimises nerves for the exam when you are young and relatively inexperienced at formal exam sittings.

Personally I can't see any problem with tutoring for it so long as you have a bright child. Tutoring a child that might just squeeze in after tutoring is a concern as they are not necessarily going be best placed at a hot house school and it's all for the parents own egos.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with coaching. As long as you think there is nothing wrong with the system.

But supporters of grammar schools often argue that they are good for children who are naturally bright but from poorer backgrounds, that the 11+ is able to identify un-nurtured potential and give those kids a chance. When it’s all middle-class and already privileged children attending what is point.

I don't think that anyone argues about grammars being dominated by middle classes, it's widely recognised fact.

The essence of discussion is if we should have selective education, if those brighter kids should have a separate learning environment where they are free from disruptive behavior and challenged to stretch their abilities.

One may argue the answer depends on your political views, but I strongly suspect it depends on where your kids are, e.g. if your DCs are bright grammar material in grammar area or not.

I think you have summed up why I agree with grammar schools. My DD was not stretched in primary school because they largely ignored children who were already meeting expectations. She was also regularly disrupted by other children (classrooms having to be evacuated etc). I am very happy that she is now in a school which will help her to reach her potential without all the distractions.

One could argue why should already advantaged children benefit from being in a learning environment that is free from disruptive behaviour? Why, just because a child struggles academically, should they have to put up with the bad behaviour of some other children?
More able children don't need to go to grammar school to benefit anyway - sets in a comprehensive school usually mean that the most able children don't have disruptive children in their lessons. My son went to our local comprehensive ( a true comprehensive, not one that has had the most able creamed off by a grammar) and was in top sets; the children in his sets went on to high ranking universities, including several to Oxbridge.
Had I lived in a grammar area, yes, despite knowing he was lucky enough to be naturally bright, I probably would have coached him to ensure he did as well as possible in the 11+. I don't agree with the grammar system, but if that was the choice I had then I would have felt duty bound to help him to secure his place.

Definitely. And maybe a stronger initiative in certain primaries that have a very high number of deprived and disadvantaged children. They could perhaps identify pupils with potential, discuss with parents and do practice within school.

@Melancholyflower
One could argue why should already advantaged children benefit from being in a learning environment that is free from disruptive behaviour? Why, just because a child struggles academically, should they have to put up with the bad behaviour of some other children?

Nobody should have to put up with the bad behaviour of some children, I agree. Unfortunate reality is that there is a very significant proportion of dysfunctional parents who don't value education at all who produce dysfunctional disruptive kids and there is only so much that schools can do to control it.
A handful of such kids in class will destroy it for everyone.
So do we sink everyone or try to save at least some group of most able ones?
I actually believe that there should be another type of schools for kids who can't succeed academically and would be better off by learning useful trades at earlier stage than 16-18 to become successful.

The system is inherently unfair and should just be scrapped.

The grammar system is unfair. Most of the UK don’t have access to grammar regardless of ability.

It's not because they are "less able" as you claim but because parents from lower SES don't have enough time/energy/resources to develop their children's abilities as much as higher SES parents.

IQ and abilities are not equivalent concepts and IQ testing is inherently problematic as e.g. Raven has no meaning for many ethnic groups but it doesn't mean their non-verbal IQ is lower. There is no need for Raven abstractions in Amazonia.

We aren't talking about Amazonians though. The discussion is about UK based kids, majority of whom spent most of their lives here and likely to stay here. There is no need to change the system for majority to accommodate for a tiny minority of exceptions, those exceptions should be given support without affecting mainstream.

If by age of 11 some ethnic minorities going to school here are so far from local standards that they can't pass IQ testing then they are very unlikely to be able to cope with stretching standards required for the most capable cohort.

So what do you propose? keep those 140 IQ children, God forbid from middle classes, in the same class as what you call minorities whose IQ tests, for whatever reasons, might be below 100? Is this for greater good of everyone?

It isn't all middle class privileged kids though, there are also the naturally bright, poorer kids so taking it away from the middle class kids also takes it away from the poorer ones.

They need to age adjust the scores. We have a three tier system in my area. Lots of very good privates, the grammars and then the states. Because the affluent and then the bright kids get siphoned off - the states are very poor quality.

Many in my area who I know are deferring there children when April, May, June born. They say they think their children aren’t ready. It’s bullshit for 99%. There has been chat about the 11+ being by age group and not age so I think that’s the real reason.

It’s very annoying. My son is April born. Potentially going to be youngest by a year and a half in his cohort on average. I might have to download the vocab list now and start prepping from pre school 😂

Our local grammar school adjusts scores depending on the child’s age, so my DD got a few extra points for being May born.

Scores are age adjusted. At least in our area in London. CATS scores are definitely age adjusted. It might be considered that for summer born who learn in the same class with older children it actually gives some advantage.

ETA: April, seriously? not even end August? anecdata of course, but some of my DCs classmates Aug born got places in the most selective grammars and privates in the UK. By 11 it's really not the most critical factor

I do not propose anything as I'm not in the elite. As far as I can see, the government is doing what it has been doing for centuries - segregating the elite from the plebs. Middle classes are somewhat shocked the elites have now included them in "the plebs" but in reality it has always been the case, only the MC were not told that in such a straightforward manner. It's very naive of MC to try "propose" something to the elites.

As for the Amazonians - well, whilst it's technically true that indigenous population constitutes the majority at the moment, roughly 37% of births are already to parents where at least one or both are not British born (31% are to non-British born mothers). It's increasing by ~1% annually so in a few years time it will be 50/50 so not a "tiny minority" anymore (it's not at all tiny even now). And yes, shock horror, they don't all come from a European background. Not that some Europeans wouldn't just send all disruptive children to detention centres and won't give them a second thought. There are very different cultures even within Europe.

The "local standards" will inevitably change too - in fact they are rapidly changing now, before our eyes.

Measuring ability by European and American IQ tests is racist anyway :) And there is no use for Raven matrices in real life even for Europeans 😂

@Ubertomusic
roughly 37% of births are already to parents where at least one or both are not British born (31% are to non-British born mothers). It's increasing by ~1% annually so in a few years time it will be 50/50 so not a "tiny minority" anymore

Don't you see a contradiction here? you're talking about UK born children. Means by age of 11, when selection takes place, they had good 6-7 years of British schooling experience. The moment you say that for many of them English is their 2nd language - this is actually great, kids from multilanguage environments tend to develop better, their brains are stretched more.

So if by 11 they still struggle then the issue is not being part of ethnical minority, it's a much wider issue of not meeting higher educational standards, for whatever reason, be it low IQ or just segregated parents.

Also when talking about SES we're still talking about significant proportion of native population, so it's really not a minorities issue. Just look at Indian community here and their attainment.

ETA:
And there is no use for Raven matrices in real life even for Europeans

No. And most people don't use Maths past basic banking related calculations. Shall we stop Maths tests then?