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?

This isn’t correct. Algebra is taught in year 1 yet you aren’t used to calling it algebra. KS1 Y1 curriculum literally tells you on page 7
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7da548ed915d2ac884cb07/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Mathematics_220714.pdf

We tutor 11+. There are many wealthy families. However, the best performing are those from cultures and ethnic groups that value education. The parents will sit with them and they will practise from Y3 onwards. Education is highly valued and that’s clear in their performance. Those families are sometimes well off and sometimes not. If you are a reasonably intelligent parent, you can definitely teach your child using online resources, provided your child listens and responds well to you (not hugely common).

@ThisPageIsBlank This is rubbish

No, it's not.
You seem to forget that single cases are, per se, irrelevant.
The point is not what your father achieved, but how representative, or not, his situation was. Can you honestly say it was representative?

I know two people who come from very, very humble backgrounds, got into grammar schools, then Oxbridge, and are now having amazing careers.

One has turned into a stereotypical neo-conservative with zero empathy: he thinks that if he did it, anyone can, that if you achieved less than him it's your own fault for being less intelligent than him, that luck and other factors are irrelevant, etc.

The other takes a much more nuanced approach: has little time for lazy teenagers who could go to the library without their parents etc, but realises that the family and social context plays a much bigger role in your exam success when you are aged 10-11.

You seem to follow the former approach. I find the latter much more reasonable and convincing

A system shouldn't be abolished because it is imperfect.

No, but it should be abolished if it is inherently unfair.
I wasn't just talking about removing a few arcane words from the test, but about the inherent unfairness of favouring those children who are both well-rounded and are so at that specific age, and in a test which is so alien to primary school curriculum that, even without tutoring, children need to spend significant time to familiarise themselves with it

@hamstersarse What would you say would be a fair test?

A test which is in more in line with what kids do at school will be fairer.
As will a system which ranks students by ability, but does so differently by subject and over time, like for example the concept of sets, whereby you can be in the top set for maths and the middle set for English today, and maybe next year be in the top set for both or whatever. This would be fairer because it wouldn't penalise the children who excel in one subject but not another, and it wouldn't penalise those who develop (academically) later than others, ie you can make it t the top set at 13 even if you weren't in the top set at 11.

@Anothermathstutor If you are a reasonably intelligent parent, you can definitely teach your child using online resources, provided your child listens and responds well to you (not hugely common).

I agree, and I believe I had made a very similar point. If your parents are millionaires this doesn't guarantee you will ace the 11+ test, sure.
But familiar involvement is crucial.
You don't need millionaire parents, but parents who take an interest and dedicate time to helping you, even if only with cheap resources like online material and library books, remain hugely helpful. If you don't have that, your chances of acing the 11+ do not go to zero but certainly plummet significantly.

@ThisPageIsBlank 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...

I am not sure I follow. Do you mean that there should be other schools which are academic, but which give children to time to develop at different paces, and which let children flourish even if they excel at some subjects but not all?
Or are you implying, like historically many advocates of the grammar system did, that whoever doesn't make it into a grammar is necessarily a less academic child?

Yes, in theory there should be other schools.
However, in practice, the number of schools in a given area is limited.

If you are lucky enough to live in a school with good grammar and good non-grammar schools, great, fantastic.
However, I suspect there aren't many such areas, and I suspect it's more common to live in an area where the presence of a grammar has a detrimental effect on the other schools. That's the practical point which your theoretical argument seems to ignore.

I'd also note that some of the most competitive graduate schemes recruiting from the top universities use very similar (but obviously harder and more time pressured!) non-verbal reasoning tests as part of their sifting of applications so that they can differentiate between the thousands of applicants applying for, say, 50 places.

If you have thousands of applications from people who all have degrees from great universities and high A level results etc, you need some way to sift them down and this method is extremely common. If it wasn't an effective way of getting to the fundamentals of who is the most intelligent then I doubt this would have remained standard practice for so long, as the initial sifting method.

Then those who pass that screening go on to further stages where soft skills etc are tested through group exercises/ challenges and interviews.

IQ tests also work on a similar kind of basis. Any system will be imperfect and have limitations but I think the focus on the UK in abolishing anything that may be unfair to a few outliers rather than trying to modify it to account for that has led to overall worse outcomes for all. It would be far better to focus energy on what can be done to better tailor education to the specific skills and abilities of different children through provision of a greater variety of schools focusing on different specialities (plus core subjects, of course) so that all children have a chance to develop their own individual talents.

Trying to pretend everyone is the same won't make them so. The one size fits all approach has completely failed and it should have been obvious it was never going to be beneficial for the majority of children.

I don't understand why the UK refuses to look at effective models from other countries and emulate them when they are proven to have better outcomes. It is the same in so many areas of public policy (healthcare, education, energy, pensions etc).

We are a wc family I would say and all my kids passed by doing a set of practice papers bought for £10 from wh Smith. They didn't need any explanation of how to do the questions, but getting up to speed and a bit of familiarity is important.
I don't know who produces 21+ where you are but here it is GL Assessment and the VR does not require a large vocabulary, it is all about being able to stop relationships and patterns, and flexibility of thought. Although having said that I don't think 'cantankerous' is an unusual word.

I can see the point but can't get particularly worked up about it when private education supports and enables a much greater and more damaging inequality. I live in a country where there is almost zero private education and it's wildly frustrating that the UK can't seem to even imagine this as a possibility.

That’s life.

@ThisPageIsBlank
On the tests used by universities and employers: you cannot compare tests administered to young adults in their late teens - early 20s to tests given to 10-year olds!

I remain of the opinion that, for 10-year olds, it is more important to be tested on something that will be familiar to their school curriculum. A teenager or university student can go to the library and practice these tests even if their parents are ignorant or lazy - not so much for a 10-year old.

I also suspect (but happy to hear from those who know more) that, by the time you are 18-21, a person has pretty much developed. Not so for a 10-year old, plus every kids can develop at a different pace.

So, no, your examples are not relevant to the 11+

Lastly, I am not an expert in the area so I cannot have a fully informed, scientific opinion. I do, however note that:

• the tests administered by employers seem to change with fashions and trends. There were times where everyone swore by the merit of brainteasers and questions like "estimate how many trees there are in London", then the fashion changed and many HR directors have come out saying it was all a bit BS
• You seem to misunderstand how the recruitment in for-profit entities works. They don't care about having the best system, they only care about a system that roughly works for them. If their system helps them find good candidates, they won't care much that it was discriminatory vs other candidates who could have done just as well in the job

IQ tests also work on a similar kind of basis.
I thought this was a hugely controversial topic, with some, but not all, psychologists and pedagogy experts convinced it was all a bit bull?

I don't understand why the UK refuses to look at effective models from other countries and emulate them when they are proven to have better outcomes.
Such as? Genuine question. I am fascinated by the topic but I'll admit I don't know much about it. I am intrigued by the Finnish system and I have a couple of books on that in my to-read list

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

@Jean24601Valjean
I can see the point but can't get particularly worked up about it when private education supports and enables a much greater and more damaging inequality. I live in a country where there is almost zero private education and it's wildly frustrating that the UK can't seem to even imagine this as a possibility.

I am way more concerned about grammar schools than private schools, because our tax money funds the former, not the latter.

My view is that the problem is not so much the presence of private schools, but the "chumocracy", as one journalist described it https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58993078-chums, of a wealthy elite perpetuating itself and its privileges by operating like a closed caste, and ensuring that its members were prioritised in appointments and jobs.

We need to change this, not to abolish private schools.
Hypothetically, abolishing private schools without changing this won't achieve much, because the caste will continue to pick its own members for the top jobs, even if they didn't go to Eaton.

And
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

That discrimination too though - a primary school in special measures, or one with large number of for example SEN, or EAL kids, or one that struggles to recruit, or has large numbers of deprived kids, won't be able to teach the full curriculum, whereas a nice middle class leafy primary will be.

Having NVR based tests, rather than content based tests, can be a way of levelling the playing field.

I remain of the opinion that, for 10-year olds, it is more important to be tested on something that will be familiar to their school curriculum

I disagree. This is testing knowledge which relies on the child having had good teachers, an appropriate school learning environment, the lessons having been provided in a format that is accessible for them, issues are language or SEND etc.

Providing a non-verbal reasoning test that is aimed to look at inherent ability to grasp concepts accessible to all in visual format is a far better measure of intelligence mitigating as mucj as possible for these confounding factors that can scew the results. Not perfect, but better.

They are unfair I agree and are stuffed with kids whose parents place so much emphasis on education (often culturally) that they hot house their kids and expect them to work hours and hours per week.

The do nothing for social mobility and you can take an average to slightly above average child and tutor them for 2 years to help them pass. They would only be fair if no one was allowed to be tutored and if there was evidence of it they would be rejected (obvs that’s not going to happen)

It’s only really available for kids with enough money to pay for specialist tutoring and not innate ability. Takes it away from a naturally bright child form a deprived background.

Some would say it’s no different to GCSE tuition, but I’d disagree as tutoring a more privileged child for GCSE’s doesn’t prevent a deprived child gaining the same GCSE’s, though it would be much harder for them of course.

They don't care about having the best system, they only care about a system that roughly works for them. If their system helps them find good candidates, they won't care much that it was discriminatory vs other candidates who could have done just as well in the job

Obviously what works for them is to get the most intelligent people with the highest ability because it gives them competitive advantage! It's not in their interests to pass up talent by accident because of confounding factors in the recruitment process. The immense efforts to widen recruitment pools in recent years and the use of such tests to remove bias due to privilege aren't (even if they like to portray them as such!) due to some sense of egalitarianism or altruism: they do this because it is commercially beneficial to recruit the most intelligent candidates.

This - If a child needs to be tutored for sitting an entry test that the schools say you’re not supposed to be tutored for, they shouldn’t be going imo. If a child’s good enough and bright enough to pass on their own merit then it’s deserved and what they were initially intended for.

I am way more concerned about grammar schools than private schools, because our tax money funds the former, not the latter.

@ParentOfOne If you're really concerned about unfairness and elitism in society then private schools should bother you regardless of how the schools are funded. Society will remain unfair until this is addressed. I honestly think you're being disingenuous if you claim to be bothered about elitism and fairness and you are not bothered by private schools.

If argue that we need to abolish the chumocracy and private schools.

And on the tax issue, there are quite a few things I'd rather my taxes didn't pay for (I'm still a UK taxpayer). That's just how it works. But I honestly don't think, with the number of grammar schools in the UK, that they have a massive impact on inequality. Hence not getting worked up.

Edit: I realise I could have been clearer here in saying that I think abolishing private schools would be an important and integral part of abolishing the chumocracy. Genuinely interested to hear what practical steps you or the author of the book suggests??

The children who pass 11+ will obviously be bright, but because it is so widely tutored for it clearly is not a test of intelligence or potential.
I went to a super selective grammar school in the 90s and have gone through the process with DC now. It may have been possible to pass without tutoring then, but I genuinely believe it is impossible to do so now, and respectfully, people referring to outcomes for their grown up children who have now graduated aren’t terribly useful.

I don’t think it’s something to get too fixated on personally. I can’t blame anyone for wanting the best for their children and I also have no issue with people buying themselves into catchments with the best performing schools.

I think the real issue is there isn’t enough money in education at the moment and the current school system is not working well for lots of children for lots of reasons. Going after grammar schools or private schools feels like fiddling at the margin and frankly going after easy targets. If there were more good comprehensive options and as a parents we could exercise choice about which our children attend then we wouldn’t be talking about this. That I think is the real problem.

They are unfair I agree and are stuffed with kids whose parents place so much emphasis on education (often culturally) that they hot house their kids and expect them to work hours and hours per week.

I think there is certainly an effect now that grammar schools are sparse where they have become populated by the more privileged but this is not due to the 11+ exam (although as I said I believe improvements could be made to that), it is primarily because there are fewer grammar schools. Therefore, housing in catchment areas becomes significantly more expensive and only families with more money can live in one. And because only families with more money AND who value education highly would be prepared and able to pay that premium for housing the school application process becomes even more competitive, resulting in tutoring etc to try to gain advantage.

Were there still grammar schools available in every catchment areas this condensing of such people on the few areas where they still exist would not take place; a far wider pool of intelligent children from different backgrounds would have access to them as they used to in previous generations and the pupils attending would be more mixed and they would better serve their purpose of social mobility based on merit again.

The problem you mention is therefore caused by the policy of reducing the number of grammar schools, ironically. To fix it more such schools need to be established, not fewer.

When did tutoring start? I remember turning up at school one day in 1991 and being told we're doing a test today and that was it! I don't remember ANYONE doing any kind of practice, my parents certainly didn't.

Of course it's elitist (intellectually)- that's the whole point. It makes sense to test on things that aren't part of the primary curriculum, because they are looking for intelligence and potential (rather than, for example, which kids have had a better primary school teacher).

I'm no expert on the 11+, but I do teach in a girls' grammar school - one which has quite a lot of middle class students but also a lot from disadvantaged backgrounds with virtually no cultural capital and with parents who could neither pay for tutoring nor help their child with school work or 11+ practice. A large proportion are Muslim girls from families, often in the poorer part of the area, who prefer them to go to a single-sex school

I went to grammar school in the 1980s and tutoring was pretty common then.

No more elitist than paying a premium for a house in the catchment area of great comps

I agree with some of what you’re saying but I don’t agree the answer is more grammar schools. The money should be spent on normal academy’s available to all. The reason the got rid of them in the first place was because they were inherently unfair. At 11 a kids future was practically mapped out based on a single test. Clever ones that school and ‘thick’ ones the other way.

All children should have the chance of a descent standard of schooling, not just those with privilege. I would also be happy to see private schools abolished for the same reason. You just have to look at the Government. There are more Millionaires from private schools and colleges, it’s quite sickening really.

The only prime minister that came from a local comp was Gordon Brown. There was Thatcher of course, who went to a Grammar school. Look at the influence Musk and Trump have in the Westerm world, money talks and all. Though to be fair to Musk, he is really clever.

That can’t be prevented though. Grammar schools could be easily abolished.