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?

If you base it on SATs then you will create a new set of problem.

DD's primary in London got stellar results in SATs at every stage - but they also did targeted after school help for any child who wasn't going to get top resuts. (Also did free 11+ coaching for any child sitting for grammar or private schools).

Other schools within a few hundred metres didn't get anything like the same SAT scores. You'd end up with 80% of one primary qualifying and 10% of another.

Not sure teachers would thank you either - can you imagine the pressure from parents if a grammar place was SAT dependent?

Comps exist in areas with optional grammar schools too. Many, many parents choose not to put their bright kids through the 11+ because they prefer the ethos of the comp.

Of course that school is going to have kids as bright (or brighter) than some of the grammar school kids. It’s perfectly possible to leave a comprehensive with straight 9s/A*s

@Tiredalwaystired "Comps exist in areas with optional grammar schools too. Many, many parents choose not to put their bright kids through the 11+ because they prefer the ethos of the comp."
Which areas do you mean?

Anywhere where the 11+ isn’t compulsory in the county or region.

For example there are grammar schools in and around London but also lots of comprehensive schools. Taking the 11+ for entry to the grammar is entirely optional.

It is dependent on ‘micro area’.

I would say Gloucestershire has many ‘near comprehensives’, including some very good ones.

However, Gloucester and Stroud, where the remaining grammars are congregated in greater numbers, have ‘other’ schools that are less comprehensive and more secondary modern like.

And for exactly this reason it is ridiculous to dismiss a child’s ability because they’ve attended a comprehensive.

Further to @Rivett 's post earlier, it's also worth reiterating that there is plentiful data indicating that the vast majority of DCs experience peaks and troughs in their educational achievements. It is profoundly incorrect to assume those who do best at 10 are going to do best at 16, 18 or 21.

There are myriad reasons for this, ranging from a chaotic home life to parent(s) who are unable or unwilling to offer support, to the quality of primary school attended and the teaching therein etc etc. The older DCs get the more they can compensate for these issues through independent study and access to the necessary resources . At 10, that isn't usually possible.

Also worth making the point that many grammars quietly discard a portion of their pupils at 16, re-recruiting high attainers at GCSE from non-grammars to boost their A level and destination results - a tacit acknowledgment that the 11+ process plus the intervening 5 years (of supposedly ‘better’ teaching) is a deeply imperfect tool for identifying those who will do best at 18.

@Tiredalwaystired "Anywhere where the 11+ isn’t compulsory in the county or region."

The 11+ is not compulsory in Kent. However, there a no comprehensive schools
In Kent.

Getting slightly off topic, however I don’t believe that any school actually calls themselves a secondary modern these days. Correct me if I’m wrong, the term just sounds very outdated to me.

In NE England where I am from they abolished state grammars in about 1971. I don't see why in a united kingdom state educational provision differs so much based on where you happen to live.

The thing is, secondary modern had a negative connotation (the place for those who failed). Understandably, schools did not choose to keep that name once they had an option not to - proliferating into academies and high schools, secondary schools and upper schools, St Bob’s school and Community schools.

However, in threads about grammar schools, someone in Kent, Gloucestershire, London or Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire or Lincolnshire will have a different view in what a ‘non grammar’ is - is it truly comprehensive (representative of its catchment); near-comprehensive; or lacking 30% of the higher ability students within its catchment? When someone in Kent says ‘I don’t want my child to go to a comprehensive’, they mean ‘a school denuded of higher ability pupils’, so it is for clarity that the term ‘secondary modern’ is used to differentiate those from true comprehensives.

Well no, the schools may not because it's seen as pejorative and the narrative is that these schools are capable of educating the very top achievers (though this begs the question why do we need any other schools then?). However parents and children do call them that.

What they most definitely are not, is comprehensives.

@cantkeepawayforever thank you that’s a really clear explanation!

@thing47 of course they can teach the very top achievers- all students sit the same GCSEs and follow the same curriculum, by and large. In my experience the very best teachers are those who stay at the non-selectives, I have known many colleagues make the switch to grammar or private for ‘an easy life’ (their words not mine). To answer your question there is absolutely no “need” for any other schools, and there are many areas of the country with no grammars at all. Statistically high prior achieving students actually do better in non grammar areas. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/28/english-regions-dominated-by-grammar-schools-do-not-improve-grades-study-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I also don’t see how they are not comprehensive, there are many parents (myself included) who choose not to put their children in for the 11+. There are other reasons why they might choose that school, for example my closest grammar school has quite a narrow range of subjects and doesn’t even offer drama GCSE. By your reasoning no school can ever be truly comprehensive, there are also those who go to private school, and those who are home educated. Maybe we should just stick to selective and non-selective.

Ah well now we're in total agreement. I agree with you over teaching quality, and study after study has shown that the biggest in-school factor behind pupils' success is great teaching. There's data showing that DCs do better in a large class with a great teacher than in a small class with a weak one.

Do you think I'm a grammar school fan? I'm most certainly not!!

I'm simply arguing with the terminology - in an all-grammar county such as Bucks if 25-30% of state-educated DCs are attending a grammar school, the remaining schools are not, quite literally by definition, comprehensives. And just as they don't call themselves secondary moderns, nor do they refer to themselves as comprehensives

Incidentally, I agree with you re qualifications. The one of mine who went to a secondary modern did better at every stage than the one who went to a grammar.

She still didn't go to a comprehensive though 😀. And there was a clear difference in terms of resources and finance.

I guess we just go with selective and non- selective then! It’s all very confusing and area specific. Personally I’d rather they scrap them all!

Thats irrelevant to my initial response to your question about places that have comprehensives and optional grammar schools sitting side by side.

@Tiredalwaystired a school cannot be a comprehensive if it does not have the full range of abilities. And in an area like Kent they will not have that range.

The term "secondary modern" is not used, particularly by grammar supporters because there is too much baggage attached- it reminds people uncomfortably of the fact that we're dividing children into sheep and goats based on an arbitrary test taken on one day at the age of 10.

I have never encountered a school calling itself a secondary modern in my entire life. I went to secondary school in the 90s and didn’t encounter the term then, or in the decades since 🤷‍♀️

As explained, because it is a pejorative term, schools don’t call themselves secondary moderns. There is no universally-understood name for ‘the other schools in grammar areas’ - and some are misleadingly referred to as ‘comprehensive’. To avoid this confusion - and only for that reason - I would refer to non-grammar schools in wholly or largely bipartite areas as ‘secondary moderns’, those in areas with a few super-selective grammars as ‘near -comprehensives’, and those where no state selective schools within reasonable reach as ‘comprehensives’.

If a school has one child from each of the three ability ranges, by definition it is Comprehensive in the range of academic ability it teaches. Is it not a Comprehensive School then !

I don't believe in all this talk that a Comprehensive school needs to have a equal 33% split across the three ability ranges or anything like that number, just one from each group is enough. If this is not the case Comprehensive schools in deprived non selective areas which have less than 15% high attaining and more than 40% low attaining pupils must be Secondary Moderns.

A school is comprehensive if it reasonably reflects the makeup of its catchment area with no element of selection in its criteria for admissions.

So yes, the ability range and relative proportion of different ability groups will depend both on local demographics and the exercise of parental choice (where more than 1 school is reasonably accessible). But the ‘other’ school in a grammar area is not made ‘truly comprehensive’ by the presence of some able pupils who may not have taken, or may have failed, the 11+.

Thinking about it, there also needs to be no element of academic selection in the admissions criteria of ANY local state schools (not just the school in question) for a school to be comprehensive.