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?

Surely we can agree that every child warrants the same standard of education? As a very basic human right?

@Rachelthieves "I think the real problem is that posters believe everybody should receive the same standard of education, when in reality many children don't need it or warrant it"

I think you said the quiet bit out loud.....

I teach in a comprehensive school in an area with 3 grammar schools. For me one of the biggest issues with the 11+ is the effect it has on the children who don’t pass. So many children starting secondary already feeling like a failure because they didn’t pass a test at 10 years old!

@LifedestroyerifYOUletthem this ST report? Although I think the link below may just be the summary.

https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/GRAMMAR-SCHOOLS-FACT-SHEET.pdf

Agree people carry that sense of failure with them for years, my nearly 75 year dad talks about having failed the 11 plus...

I was mostly posting this as an alternative to ‘the primaries should be teaching 11+ skills’.

No, either the 11+ tests skills genuinely universally taught as part of the national curriculum in primary schools or the grammar schools are responsible for making the tests absolutely fair and reproducible - which could mean that they have to have different tests or they must address any and all types of unfairness, which includes economic and practical access to tutoring and specific training. If they can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be allowed to select and all shoukd become comprehensives.

I have posted many times that I believe there may be a need for ‘exceptional ability’ special schools, co-located with one or more comprehensives per county, where, after full assessment by an Ed Psych and other specialists, an EHCP can name the special school for one or more subjects if the child’s ability is sufficiently far from the norm to be efficiently educated within a normal, setted, comprehensive environment.

I don’t think there is a true need for ‘normal’ grammars, where a percentage of children who could perfectly efficiently be educated in mainstream - and are in many counties - are artificially segregated from their like-ability peers, on the basis of a single faulty and unreproducible test.

Totally agree with you

of course if we lived in a 11+ area we’d try our dammed hardest to get the kids into the grammar. Luckily we’re not.

@BellissimoGecko@BellissimoGecko sorry didn't mean to tag you.. @boys3 it's research I did years ago I've no idea.

I think a big part of the problem is that there are too many invested people making rather a lot of money out of parents and schools. As the 11 plus exams aren't just done by state grammars but by many privates schools.

Personally, I think our current system is so fragmented and broken that a serious overhaul is need - where we look at the different types of school. I also have problems with faith schools, private schools and some of these large academy chains and pigeonholing children at 11, but that's beyond this thread.

Yes. The absolute screaming priority is more money, more spaces, more universal and timely access to special schools on the basis of need. And better vocational pathways that can mix and match with functional skills and academic options. Both would dramatically improve mainstream schooling for the vast majority.

By comparison, discussion of the precise nature of the 11+ grammar schools is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

It’s a really good point actually that grammar schools can actually mean different things in different places so some of the debate is arguing about apples rather than oranges eg. A fully grammar county like Kent is very different from super selectives in London and the super selectives in London operate in a very different market to the super selectives in Essex. The differences in these schools have very different impacts on local school populations, intake, prep required etc.

I went to grammar in Essex but the stakes were much lower as there were excellent secondary schools and the reality is if Id have been fine at either type of school.

Where I happen to live in London is very different. There are some excellent state schools with teeny catchments, some schools that get good results but are extremely strict to manage poor behaviour (think along the lines of the Mossbourne Academies being investigated about allegations of psychological harm to children) some people like that I really don’t. And then there are some local schools that get appalling outcomes, have poor behaviour and have serious issues around eg knife crime in recent memory.

I strongly agree.

@Neveragain35 "I teach in a comprehensive school in an area with 3 grammar schools. For me one of the biggest issues with the 11+ is the effect it has on the children who don’t pass. So many children starting secondary already feeling like a failure because they didn’t pass a test at 10 years old"

So you don't actually teach in a comprehensive school at all.

Are you really comparing prep for the 11+ with OT and pastoral care?! Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?!

@dyedinthewoolcheeseeater no, I did not make the comparison, it was implicit in the comment my post was responding to which stated:

The thing is that it would be totally inappropriate for any primary school to dedicate sufficient resource to an activity that only 20% of the pupils will benefit from, to the detriment of the rest, and where nothing equivalent exists that the other 80% can benefit from.

The post above clearly states that any provision that might benefit 20% of pupils and not be beneficial to the other 80% is an inappropriate use of resources so nobody should get it. This approach would be catastrophic. I provided a list of numerous examples demonstrating that such a viewpoint is ridiculous, and indeed schools do already provide targeted support of many different kinds - both academic support and other kinds of support - to specific small percentages of a cohort who will benefit from that specific resource based on their own needs and abilities, so it makes no logical sense to claim this should be provided in some circumstances but would be "inappropriate" in others.

Indeed, providing such resources of whatever nature to each child to achieve their potential is a crucial part of a school's basic purpose, whatever the child's skills, abilities, talents, difficulties or needs happen to be. The nature of the resource required to ensure each child maximises their potential is irrelevant to the principle that it is the school's role to identify the appropriate resources to achieve that aim and provide them to the children who will benefit from them.

@CurlewKate It is a comprehensive school as it does not select students on the basis of a selective test, it is open to all. If you mean I should call it a secondary modern, I’ve been teaching for over 10 years and have never heard that term used professionally or by other parents, only on mumsnet! We are an averaged sized town with 3 grammars in just about striking distance (with a lengthy commute for some) so some parents choose to put their DC in for the 11+ but many do not. And it IS a truly comprehensive school. We have some kids getting a string of 9s and some who do well to get 4s. We cater for all abilities.

This - I’ve got 3 DC , only one ( the middle ) passed . The youngest 4 years later still feels ‘less than ‘ .

That said the Grammar is 100% the best environment for DS2. He was bored in year 6 at primary and probably would have been in state comprehensive . They do work at a faster pace in the Grammar.

By all means put everyone in the same school - but don’t treat everyone the same - that’s wasting both skill sets and disadvantaging both .

I wonder why grammar provision isn’t just based on SATS results than a devised test?

Then it would come from a more level place and primarys are supporting this anyway

Im not pro grammar but if they have to exist this seems a better approach. Perhaps tied to an interview for borderline acceptance level pupils.

Surely all children should receive the same standard of education?! ( a good standard with good teachers) That doesn’t mean I think they should all be taught in
the same class!

Most schools use streaming, so whilst they all begin at the same starting point and learn the same things, set 1 work a lot faster and set 5 won’t ever get to the higher level work.

If a child in a lower set is working well there is opportunities for them to move up accordingly. That’s a fairer system than segregation at 11.

There will be kids in the top sets of comprehensive schools that are higher ability than kids in lower sets of that Grammars. They all do GCSE’s after all.

The 20% would change if tutoring wasn’t allowed or every child had the opportunity to be tutored….

It always makes me laugh when people suggest that the kids who go to a grammar are more intelligent than the kids at the local comp. Some will be of course but certainly not all.

It’s like someone training 2 years for a marathon and their opponent is someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to train, through no fault of their own. Yes the one who trained will do better of course but don’t make the mistake of assuming they are better, it’s because they’ve had access to training.

If they both had the same access and chances, then wouldn’t it be interesting to see who won, only then can you say who is the ‘best’

Great analogy and definitely agree - and more evidence of why it's so important that every child should get the same opportunities in education. Which is why I'm for changing the whole system, including private schools..

Where I live everyone absolutely does call the non-grammar schools 'secondary moderns'. 'Comprehensive' would be an inaccurate description because they aren't comprehensive, they are not teaching the 25-30% of DCs who are in the grammar schools!

I always think a truly civilised society would take the bottom 30% at 11 and give them an outstanding, tailored education to catch them up.

It does depend on the number and selectivity of the grammar schools.

This school is technically a secondary modern (being one of the ‘other’ schools in an area with grammars). However, its intake is unusually privileged and results significantly surpass many, many ‘true’ comprehensives.

www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/136474

Exactly.

Though not necessarily ‘catch them up’ - this may not be relevant or appropriate- more provide an outstanding education carefully matched to their needs, abilities and aptitudes, including an open path back into ‘mainstream 70%’ education at any point.