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?

It indicates nothing of the sort!!! I can't help but notice that your answers to all the criticism raised about the 11+ has been a deafening silence!

This also demonstrates that you have not actually read my posts! I specifically set out in the first one ways it could be improved. 🤣🤦🏻‍♀️ Never mind, eh?

Grammar schools were originally designed to give bright children from any background the opportunity to go to an academically focused school.

Sadly, this has all changed... as questions in the 11+ include topics not taught on the NC, the only way to pass the exam is by having a tutor. I live in a grammar school area and it's awful watching parents scramble to get a tutor for their children from Y4.

The only way to make the 11+ fair would be to test the children on topics which have been covered on the NC. This would stop the need for tutors. But that won't happen as the preparation for 11+ is a money making industry!

@ThisPageIsBlank The current comprehensive system actually entrenches disadvantage and reduces social mobility, ironically, through the delusion that if we pretend everyone is the same they will somehow become so and then utopia will follow. But it hasn't, has it?

Not all state secondaries are the same. In fact, most are now academies - a system on which I have other reservations, as in my thread about Mossbourne, but that's a separate topic https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/5225872-mossbourne-academies-investigations-into-alleged-emotional-harm-and-abuse-why-are-needlessly-strict-academies-unaccountable?page=1

What I mean is that many state secondary school do NOT pretend everyone is the same.

Many divide children in sets, allowing children to be in different sets by subject, and allowing them to move up and down sets over time. That's the exact opposite of pretending everyone is the same, and it addresses many of the problems with the 11+, because it doesn't penalise the children who mature later, nor those who excel at one subject but not all.

Some state schools also admit by banding: they divide children into, say, 5 bands, if they have 100 places they allocate 20 places per band, and within each ability band they admit by distance. The rationale is that the school should benefit from a more diverse (in terms of ability) intake. Again, that doesn't mean pretending that everyone is the same!

Agree
@KnickerlessParsons great username

@ThisPageIsBlank how would your system of more grammar schools help children like my DS with a "spiky" profile? He's a talented mathematician who is also dyslexic? At his comp he was able to be in the top set for maths and bottom set for English. Would he get to go to the grammar where his maths could be stretched but he would struggle to keep up with the level of English or put in a secondary modern where he wouldn't have any maths peers? I am so thankful we live in a comprehensive area.

I genuinely do not understand parents that wish for their child to go to a selective school, but do not wish for there to be a selection process?!

It doesn’t make sense?

@ThisPageIsBlank This also demonstrates that you have not actually read my posts! I specifically set out in the first one ways it could be improved. 🤣🤦🏻‍♀️ Never mind, eh?

You didn't, in fact, set out much. You said you were open to re-testing at 13, but you didn't address what we should do with children who excel in one area but not in all, and who'd therefore never ace the whole 11+.

You also didn't explain why it would be worse to have a system based on sets, where children can be in different sets for different subjects, and can move up and down sets over time.

OP you may be right that 11+ is unfair and elitist but none of your arguments appears to support your conclusion.

• 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 vice versa, won't do well

People's academic abilities develop at different pace throughout education, from GCSEs to postgraduate studies, so this is an issue with all testing, not just 11+ (so if you are right all tests are unfair - a reductio). Moreover, most people have strengths in different areas, rather than being equally good in everything. Besides, a child can enter even in a super-selective school by acing one subject (english and verbal) and doing OK in the other (Maths/NVR). One may say that the difference in development can be starker at 10. But there is an official adjustment for summer born kids, who develop later. In any case, this point does not relate to your charge of elitism.

• 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.

This is the main argument, but as others have said, it is family/parental ambition that is the main driver behind academic success at 11+ and this cuts across middle class/working class divide. Hence so many grammar schools are full of kids of immigrants from disadvantaged backgrounds. Now, you may say that family ambition, be it by rich or poor/disadvantaged families, is itself an unfair factor. That's plausible, but again it is not elitist, in a class-based sense (understood as either income or culture).

• 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

That's really irrelevant. In a super-selective grammar, the top (say 240) ranked kids in the exam will be admitted. The harder the test, the better you can differentiate numerically between the exam performances. If the test was easier (so that all kids would know the vocabulary) then you would get 400 kids with identical scores. The hardness of the test is not elitism, it is a way to distinguish between the thousands of applicants, hundreds of whom will be very strong and bright. Schools don't set out to test vocabulary that a 10 year-old is not supposed to know. In an exam with 300 applicants for 240 places, the fact that most kids don't know cantankerous would be irrelevant, because they would get a place.

• 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

The studies of which I know, suggest that bilingualism confers an advantage in late teens and onwards, and it is a disadvantage early on (at primary education). But even if you are right, this again cuts across class divisions. Even if unfair, it's not elitist. But I struggle to see how language competence at 10 yo, enhanced by the fact of living in a bilingual household, is unfair. You contrast this to being an avid reader. Why is living in a household where one is encouraged to be an avid reader fair, but living in a household where one speaks many languages unfair. Unless someone assumes that only innate intelligence/ability should matter, and that any cultivation of skills by family background is unfair. But then this would suggest that we should test even earlier. Besides the assumption, made by the 'father' of the 11+ that intelligence is entirely innate, is flawed.

Definitely unfair . DC1 failed it. Went to a comprehensive, and despite having been deemed 'unsuitable for grammar school' got all 8s and 9s in their GCSEs, 4xA* in their A-Levels and a 1st in a science subject from a top uni. Achieved far more than their peers who went to grammar. Obviously it's all worked out fine but in this case the 11+ was a crap selection tool.

?? Like I said more than once, a selective school is not my very first choice.

It's not my fault that choice in the area is limited.

The CSSE 11+ test has dropped the VR and now only does maths and english. I suspect the kids who pass it well enough to be offered a place have worked very hard either with tutoring or intense parental support. That said there are kids in state schools who also have tutors and parental support and go onto get equally good exam results.

HNRTFT but I agree with OP . People commenting that having 11+ practice suggests that they have an advantage have obviously no knowledge of what the test involves .
It is a test that has expectations that a normal primary school cannot offer and it’s not fair on all pupils if lesson time is spent on promoting 11+ .
NVR and VR does require practice ,the timings and understanding of what is required cannot be just acquired from nowhere.
Imagine taking your driving test without any tuition,some people pass after a few lessons and others just cannot grasp it ..such is life,we are not all the same academically or practically. 🤷‍♀️

@JoeDoe
I see your points.

The 11+ is not as elitist as private schools, because you don't need to be wealthy to ace it, but it still discriminates socially to the extent that, if your family is not supportive, this will greatly reduce your chances.

On the point about all-rounders, I remain of that opinion. I find it fairer to divide children by sets, with different sets by subjects, and to allow them to move up and down sets over time, because this means that someone who excels at maths but not in English, or viceversa, will still have the chance to get a good maths education. The same person will not have the same chance in a grammar school.

On the verbal part being too hard: no, it's not irrelevant. If no one knows what cogitation means, then it's as if the question hadn't been asked. But, in practice, the rush to more and more tutoring is precisely to prepare children for this type of questions. So those types of questions will be answered not by the most gifted children, but simply by those who have crammed more and more hours of tutoring and practice, even if, let's be frank, it is quite unrealistic to expect a 10-year old to know what cogitation means.

On Latin languages: maybe I was unclear. Children familiar with a Latin language (and possibly even with Greek) have an advantage over children who speak only English, because many words which are considered more complex in English have a Latin root. For example, "initiate" is not a particularly hard word, not the same as cogitation, but it's not a word you'd expect, say, a 6-year old to be familiar with. However, any child who speak Spanish Italian etc will know "iniciar / iniziare" , so bilingual children will be able to guess what "initiate" means based on that.

Yes, I have explained both of these things.

What you suggest is the one size fits all approach with all children studying the same curriculum, in the same school, regardless of their specific needs or interests or talents, which - as the current dire state of affairs demonstrates - does not work. I have set out very detailed explanations of why I believe this is the case, described alternatives and referred to the alternative models which have been shown to have superior outcomes for all children.

It's tedious that pretty much every post you make demands answers from posters (not just me) to questions they've addressed already. I think I'll leave you to it.

@ThisPageIsBlank You did not, just like you didn't substantiate why the 11+ or similar tests would be good predictors of academic ability.

You seem to insist on proposing a false dichotomy, in which grammar schools are the only alternative to the current system, and anyone criticising grammars automatically defends the current system without wanting to improve it.

That's blatantly nonsense. But you do you. Goodbye.

As previously, I still disagree with the concept of grammar schools….

You will never stop those with privilege and finance trying to negotiate (cheat) the system to get their child a place using private tuition, which I’m sure you’re aware, is against the ethos of Grammar schools.

Familiarity does lead to unnaturally inflated scores. I have experience with IQ tests, not the 11+ types, whereby they’re supposed to measure some level of natural aptitude or the free Internet ones.

I’m taking about the WISC, whereby only Educational Psychologists can administer it. I assume most people even on this thread won’t know what the WISC is and won’t know what the WISC stands for unless they use Google. It’s only used by Ed Psychs in exceptional circumstances, so the average person won’t have a clue what their actual IQ is.

You’re not allowed (not supposed to) prep your child if they are sitting an actual IQ test as familiarity can lead to inflated scores as practice makes perfect and all…..

An Educational Psychologist isn’t following the code of of conduct if they allow a child to complete the same IQ test more than once in two years, as exposure comprises the validity and reliability.

One of my assignments during my Psychology degree, was to discuss the problems with IQ tests and that is one of the highest scores I attained. I also have experience of actual IQ scores within my own family. So believe me when I say, a high score on the 11+ does not necessarily equate to intelligence….

It is a test that has expectations that a normal primary school cannot offer and it’s not fair on all pupils if lesson time is spent on promoting 11+ .

Although this rather proves the point!

If this assertion is correct (that astate primary school cannot offer sufficient education to pass an 11+ exam) then we must conclude either that:

• students attending state primary schools are less academically able than those at private schools; or

• the state education model of lumping all children together regardless of academic ability means that those who are very academically able are not being stretched to their full potential and the comprehensive state system therefore isn't best for them.

It rather proves the points I've been making. Clearly if - with tutoring - many of them can and do indeed pass it, then many others would also have learned far more in primary school with appropriate teaching tailored to their abilities so that there was no need for tutors to fill that gap left by schools failing to ensure they reach their potential.

Meanwhile, other children are being failed because they have SEN and the environment isn't appropriate for them, or are talented in other non-academic areas which the school curriculum doesn't cater for/ provide sufficient time to cultivate their skills in/ provide specialist teachers for/ decent facilities required to pursue these skills and interests.

Yet apparently recognising children are different to each other and have different needs in education is "unfair". The opposite is the case. It's unfair to reduce all of their life chances by subjecting them to this failing system under the false pretence of it being fair to treat them like identical little robots who should have all individuality crushed out of them.

From the moment they start school a significant proportion of children are failed, and the vast majority achieve sub-optimal outcomes as a result.

The system is broken and nothing will improve in any significant way until the whole thing is redesigned from scratch.

Our primary school didn’t manage to teach the whole year 5 curriculum so there were some pretty big gaps in DD1’s year so it would have been a total mess if they had to pack in 11+ prep too!

I think the real reason is schools aren’t allowed to teach 11+ content. Even if they were allowed to our old head is strongly opposed to grammar school’s ideologically and wouldn’t have wanted to help.

@ThisPageIsBlank
Although this rather proves the point!

It doesn't - not in the slightest!

• the state education model of lumping all children together regardless of academic ability means that those who are very academically able are not being stretched to their full potential and the comprehensive state system therefore isn't best for them.

The logic does not follow, not at all.

Your logic might hold some water if the 11+ were a harder version of the school curriculum. It's not. It's a completely different thing.

If, say, the national curriculum covered only 2-D geometry, while the 11+ 3-D geometry, then, yes, you could make the argument the argument above about children not being stretched to their full potential.

But the 11+ is a completely different beast.

Many of the verbal questions are, I believe, quite irrelevant - I still fail to see why we would want a 10-year old to know what "cogitation" means, that's not what we should test on.

And much of the non-verbal part is more similar to an IQ test, ie to the type of test for which, as @Rivett explained in their professional experience, repeated exposure affects the reliability and validity of the test itself.

DD failed all the 11+ tests that she took for London independents. We are still sore about this. She's now at an OK-ish state comp where she's one of the top performers in her year. If the 11+ is meant to select the brightest and the best, it's doing a terrible job.

My theory is this. Because it's become impossible to pass the test without tutoring, it has the effect of favouring children who take well to tutoring: that is to say, children who are calm and compliant. So it doesn't reward ability - it rewards obedience.

It doesn't suit children who have a strong personality, children who have robust (and, ultimately, correct) opinions about whether grinding non-verbal reasoning is the best use of their childhood.

I’m so pleased that someone has acknowledged the role the academically focused family has and it’s certainly not the brightest children as such that go to these schools..

I think it’s relative. My friends child wants to go to 6th form at the average academy. She could go to the Grammar school sixth form she already attends but for some reason she doesn’t want to.

Horses for courses and all…

I would also say that University
admissions are taking a more rigorous look at both Grammar and private schools and that’s why some are criteria and institutional blind. Thankfully they are realising that doesn’t equate to the best candidates…

Can’t stand it, refused to do it (DS bright in primary and on track gir GCSEs which would be solid in a grammar context, so he prob would have passed). Why are you doing it if you feel the way you do? This baffles me

Unfortunately, there'll never be a fair system while there are so many variations in parenting. If the brightest kid has parents who don't prioritise their child or their education, then the kids ends up with friends who think studying is for nerds, then what chance does that child have?
If however, parents are engaged, then that child can do well without going to grammar school.

I have already explained it: because choice in my area is limited.

The test is important even in some non-selective schools: they use a banding system, but the maximum admission distance is always greater for the top band, so a good score increases the chances of admission.

If I had multiple excellent non-selective state schools, all at such a distance that admission would be pretty much guaranteed, it would be different. But I do not.

What is baffling about all this??

I just find it odd. You strongly disagree with something but are willing to support it. I feel the same as you and decided comprehensive it was, which was against the middle class grain. Not an excellent school either. But DS thriving in a mixed environment