11+ test: I think it's unfair and elitist

[ParentOfOne]

We are helping our child prepare for the 11+ test, to apply for some selective and partially selective state schools (we won't be going private).

She is doing quite well, so, from a purely selfish perspective, I should be happy.
However, I can't help but think that the test is elitist and unfair

• it favours children who are well-rounded, and who are so at 11ish. A child who develops well academically but later, and/or who is stronger in the verbal part than the non-verbal, or viceversa, won't do well
• state schools do not typically prepare children for these kinds of tests, so the family situation becomes a huge differentiator: if your parents are more educated, and/or take you to the library, and/or can pay for tutoring, you'll have a huge advantage. Libraries have books to prepare for the test, but a teenager can go to the library alone, not a 10-year old.
• some of the verbal part is honestly too hard for a child of this age. I am not sure it is appropriate to expect that 10-11 year olds know vocabulary such as cantankerous, recalcitrant, cogitations, etc
• children who speak a Latin language (maybe also Greek? Not sure) have a huge advantage guessing the meaning of the more complex words. French-speaking, Spanish-speaking kids etc are much more likely to guess the meaning of initiate, abound etc even if they are not avid readers

My sense is that the brilliant child of parents who are uneducated, don't speak another language, don't take their children to the library etc stands almost no chance vs a less academic, less brilliant middle to upper middle class child who enjoys all the other advantages mentioned above.

There is of course the separate topic of whether it is even appropriate to separate kids by academic success, but my point is not about that, it is that the 11+ test is a very poor assessment because it doesn't take into account all the other factors.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that if I lived in one of the handful of areas that still have it I would move. There are only 160 grammar schools in England, and none at all in Wales or Scotland so you have the choice whether or not to play along. Trickier if you live in NI.

No argument from me here @ParentOfOne about the unfairness and elitism of the 11+ exam.

I went to an all-girls grammar school in an area that is still largely selective. So hideous and unegalitarian to have your future set for you at age 10+ (always think 11+ is a misnomer as many if not most DC taking it are 10). I saw many examples of the unfairness of it (and this was back when people did not tutor or do much at all by way of prep). My parents taught in sec mods locally so I saw that side too.

Luckily the vast majority of England features comprehensives instead of selective grammars, and just as most DC do not go to private school, so most DC do not do the 11+ and instead go to a local state comprehensive. I would never have wanted my DC to live in a grammar area. As I say, fortunately they are easy to avoid.

The Grammars are not the holy grail of education. They definitely have their flaws. Once in, they only suit and serve a certain type of child ( maybe family? ) , that’s why the entrance exam is as it is…..

I completely agree with you and I honestly don't believe a single child who hasn't been tutored by either a tutor or their parents has a hope and hell in blindly doing okay in the tests.
I've had a child go to a grammar school and to go to different state schools and personally have much preferred the state schools and the outcomes academically have an added much to how the children would have done anyway.

DD went to grammar school. She did very well in the 11+. Her primary school did not support it or allow it to be sat in the school. She had no tutoring. I figured that if she needed tutoring to get into the school then she’d need tutoring to carry on so we decided that if she got in “naturally” fine. She did very well at the school and very well at university. I don’t actually think it’s fair to heavily tutor a child at that age. Both DH & I also went to grammar schools with no tutoring for the test but accept that it was a different time…….

It is optional though, even where state grammars exist.

Did she genuinely go into that test without having ever seen non-verbal reasoning and just cracked on with it? In which case she's a genius! My daughter was never tutored privately but we got her the practice books and a few past papers. So we basically tutored her. Her friend however didn't pass the 11 plus but it's academically much cleverer but her parents didn't show her any papers or show her what nonverbal reasoning was. She did go on and smash her GCSEs though at the state school she went to.

My youngest sat the 11+ and it was quite telling that most of the cars parked on the playground to drop off for the test were nice BMWs, Audis, RangeRovers etc.

You are quite correct OP and this is why Labour try to abolish them and restrict them as much as possible.
For exactly the same reason, they are popular among the demographics of people who consider themselves likely to be able to get their children/grandchildren into such schools thereby securing generational advantage. The remaining grammar school areas tend to be where such people form a majority among those who actually bother to vote.

If I lived in a grammar area I am sure I would do everything I could to ensure my own DC were among the advantaged not among the disadvantaged. That is a totally normal human instinct and the entire basis of evolution. But it is the duty of those in power to reduce such opportunities and level the playing field, if they are honourable.

It is disingenuous to say that considering a grammar is 'optional', as suggested by a PP, as the mere presence of a grammar has a detrimental impact on surrounding non-grammar schools; even if alternative adjacent or near-adjacent schools style themselves as comprehensive, they are de facto secondary moderns with the structural disadvantages that flow from that. In particular, for those living deep inside a grammar county, like Kent and Lincs, there will be absolutely no alternative to the grammar/secondary modern dichotomy.

Algebra is on the 11+. They take the 11+ in the October of year 6 I believe? And yet algebra isn't on the NC until year 6. So without tutoring or parental input preparation for the test they are being tested on content the haven't learned. They also don't teach the non verbal reasoning in school but you can practice this with a tutor or at home.

It's certainly not fair on the children who's families don't make the effort to fill the gap in school teaching. And it's not fair to those families who do try to fill the gaps but financially are not able to get a tutor.

Yes @ParentOfOne all the pedagogic research indicates that children mature academically at different rates and the 'brightest' (for want of a better term) at 10 will not necessarily be the brightest at 16, 18 or later. The grammar schools themselves know there is little direct link between 11+ scores and GCSE results 5 years later, though for obvious reasons they don't tend to shout about this 😀

The reasons for different maturity rates are myriad and pertain to both in-school and out-of-school factors. I can offer some ideas if anyone's interested but it feels a little outwith the scope of this thread.

Yeh S Lincs is where I am from and the alternative if you failed (which us the word everyone used) the 11+ was the school my dad taught at.

My dad was a great teacher, funny and knowledgable and truly caring. The lads he taught were looking towards a job at 16 with a handful of CSEs. I hope things are different now but I’m not sure how different they can be.

We live in a grammar school area, I think if I'd realised this when we settled here, I'd never have chosen it.

My DC is not at the grammar, although his old friends from primary school are. DC currently says he'd rather be top stream at high school than struggling at grammar so hopefully he's in the right place for him.

I'd get away with grammar schools and gave proper comprehensives with a wide range of abilities.

While I agree with you - I'm more bothered about private schools than grammar schools in terms of being unfair and elitist .

Are you in a grammar area or applying for a super-selective?

Both will have RE on the timetable btw

And has it only just occurred to you that parents who can afford tutoring are at an advantage!

@clary grammar schools certainly don't have a monopoly on good teachers so I'm not surprised at the story about your dad. I had one DC at GS and one at Secondary Modern (2 school years apart) and several of the GS students went to the maths teacher at the SR for tutoring...

Things can be different now but various elements have to fall into place - strong HT and SLT, good teachers, bad behaviour clamped down on so those who want to learn can do so, an ambitious (academicaly) peer group, supportive home environment etc

always think 11+ is a misnomer as many if not most DC taking it are 10

The name came from the exam to determine your education route 'from 11+', rather than it being named after the age you were sitting it.

Exactly, a lot of DC at State school with no 11+ prep won't even have seen a multiple choice format.
I cannot belive that any State kid could get a Grammar place without at the very least doing practice papers so they understood what the exam looked like and how it all worked.
A good friend of mine is a teacher at Grammar and invigilates the 11+ , she says every year some DC turn over the paper and just don't know what to do having never been in a similar situation.
I do agree that intensive tutouring to squeeze kids into achieving a place is a bad idea but giving them the tools to at least understand HOW to approach the papers is doing them a dis service

My sense is that the brilliant child of parents who are uneducated, don't speak another language, don't take their children to the library etc stands almost no chance vs a less academic, less brilliant middle to upper middle class child who enjoys all the other advantages mentioned above.

This is rubbish. There were no grammar schools where I grew up but my father grew up in extremely deprived circumstances with uneducated parents who didn't understand the point of education. He was one of the top scorers on the 11+ and subsequently went to Oxbridge.

However, while poor people who'd had very limited education themselves both his parents were very intelligent. We know that intelligence is roughly 80% heritable. Very bright children will therefore pass the 11+ usually even with no other advantages, which is one of the main reasons social mobility has declined since most grammar schools were abolished.

Of course mediocre children who have been to prep schools or children unfortunately will score more highly than they naturally would, but no system is perfect and life is inherently unfair. A system shouldn't be abolished because it is imperfect.

Perhaps some adjusting of result by school attended should take place as for university applications to try to correct for it. A review of the tests to ensure that they test inherent intelligence, reasoning and academic ability rather than knowledge would also be a sensible step, as your comments on vocabulary demonstrate. And perhaps some option to re-test at 13 and an expansion of places from YR9 upwards, to enable late developers to join later than YR7.

However, if the general intention is to identify the most intelligent children who will benefit most from a rigorous academic education (which will in turn benefit society as a whole) then in principle the system is appropriate and may simply need honing. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater and abolishing the system in much of the country has been immensely negative for highly intelligent children without the means to go to private school.

Meanwhile provision for children for whom grammar schools would not be appropriate also needs an enormous overhaul so that it is appropriate and useful education that actually provides skills that lead to decent careers.

I'm not sure what the point of this tone is.

No, of course I had always imagined that tutoring + class would have provided an advantage to certain children.

But it wasn't fully clear to me how alien from the primary school curriculum the 11+ test was, and therefore it wasn't fully clear to me how huge this advantage can be.

Sorry, I meant to write "or children who've had tutoring".

The non-verbal reasoning tests seem to be designed precisely to account for any discrepancies in maths or English levels resulting from variances in prjmary education, remove disadvantages from dyslexia or other language difficulties, and instead test logical reasoning, attention to detail, ability to grasp new ideas quickly. No system will ever be perfect but having just looked up some questions to see examples, they are self-explanatory and shouldn't require any practice for someone with the right abilities.

I think it's odd to say it is in some way discriminatory when the entire point is that these schools are designed to provide a particular type of education for children with specific academic skills that can be developed by those schools.

Many children might not be a good fit for that but have other skills. The existence of grammar schools doesn't devalue other different skills that children may have, that should also be developed by other schools tailored towards those areas of learning. What seems to be lacking in the UK system is those other schools...

It was insane to think that instead of setting up good secondary provision focused on children's individual talents in the arts or technical or practical skills with links to industry and decent apprenticeships etc it was better to largely abolish decent academic education for those able to benefit from it and impose a one size fits all system, subjecting those not able to benefit from it to a pretence of it and thereby wasting their others skills and turning them off learning entirely while simultaneously preventing academic children from learning either because of the resulting disruption from those who don't want to/ can't do it and are forced into the same classrooms.

All so totally dysfunctional and benefits nobody.

Well of course it is. We deliberately chose to avoid it (lived in Bedfordshire rather than Bucks, moved to Sussex rather than Kent)

What would you say would be a fair test?