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?

@Elizo No, I am not supporting it.
I am not lobbying for the expansion of existing grammars, not for the creation of new ones, nor am I supporting politicians who advocate for more grammars.

I am considering sending my child to a partially selective school, even if I disagree with the concept of selective schools, because choices in the area are limited.

Plus, as I explained, doing well in the test increases the chance of admission in those non-selective schools which use banding, because the maximum distance is always greater for the top band.

I strongly disagree with state-funded faith schools (an abomination which is unconstitutional in certain countries), but, if that were the only reasonable choice, I would send my child there, I wouldn't send her to a crap school.

Most people aren’t arsed about sport as a career, as it doesn’t pay well enough to make a career out if it. Even being great at a particular sport doesn’t usually mean financial gain unless you’re talking about being part of the Olympics, but even then, many elite athletes say how hard it is to get funding. So not the same..,

You're not wrong, but the same applies to GCSE, A levels, university entrance and so on. Life favours the privileged and the privileged will fight tooth and nail to ensure this remains the case.

@thispageisblank wholeheartedly agree with you especially this statement

"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."

DS12 is academically able yet his primary school denied his abilities then failed to meet his needs after we paid for an assessment of his abilities. The school stated that to allow him to move ahead would not be fair on the rest of the class. My son became disruptive, a school refuser and had a mental breakdown all because his academic needs were not being met. Had he gone to the local comprehensive then i do not believe that the situation would have changed. I would probably be home schooling him now, having given up my job. Instead he went to the local grammar school where he had met his tribe and I am so grateful that I no longer have to fight for his right to an education. I am grateful that he had had the opportunity via the 11+ to access the right education for him.

However selection at 11 is tough and unfair on late developers. There should be another route into grammar schools at 12 and 13. I also believe that parents should be realistic about their child's chances of success and withdraw the child from tutoring if they are not succeeding.

Children like DS need the academic rigour of a grammar school just as much as other children need to be able to move into a vocational training at 14 if they wish.

The education system is broken and needs a wholesale review.

would like to know what is fair in your sense?

Both my children went/go to grammar school

Neither of them were tutored!

With DS I was a single parent on benefits, with DD I am married, but we had rax credits to top up earnings.

Neither child is a genius, nut both passed without any form of tutoring.

Admittedly, a large amount of children come from wealthy families and we're tutored, nut it's a fallacy to say all are.

Your post doesn’t make sense initially. Are you saying your bright child was originally at a state school for primary, but went to a grammar school for secondary whereby his needs were met academically?

Does he have special needs?

I'm really not happy with the grammar school system, but because there are so many in our area we had to go with it to get them into the best schools. They had some tutoring but mostly worked with us at home.

There's also the fact that the children themselves are aware of the system, and may actually want to take the test.

I think there should be more grammar school. This gives more children the opportunity. Or more comprehensives should have a grammar stream. The one near us does....but I would still avoid sending my dc there, as there are still a lot of disruptive dc there.

Perhaps more primaries should give the opportunity to dc to prep. For example, have the prep books available for those who want it but cannot afford it. Offer up a list of books to use for study if they want to do the grammar option.

Totally agree with this. I deal with psychometrics for work and despite what the test publishers say we know that practice gives higher scores and we also know that most tests create adverse impact. In fact a lot of the questions dd is prepping with are so culturally biased.

When was this though? The 20% private hike is making our pool even more competitive this year. Tutors are saying dd will need 90% on all tests to be secure with getting in.

Not the same.

If you have never driven a car of course you can’t pass.

However, all children will have been taught how to read, write, comprehend etc. It’s the style of the test that has to be taught.

A better example would be if you’d learn to drive a car but the theory test was in Chinese.

EDIT: sorry this should have referenced the post that said you wouldn’t take a driving test without having driving lessons as a relative example to tutoring for the 11+

Argh! Replied to the wrong post! Sorry! Will try and delete.

Having seen the very divided situation where we live children follow what their parents say. I don’t recall any of DS’s 10/11yo peers taking a different view

I agree. A child cannot go in blind It is not possible. We moved from a non grammar area to a grammar area - my son missed the September 11+ tests and had to do the exam in January. We spent the WHOLE of December working on verbal and non verbal reasoning papers (including Christmas day) and he managed to get a high enough score early January to get into the local grammar school. I had no idea that there was even a test to get into grammar - assumed it was an interview (how naive I was!) No way can a child score highly enough without some sort of training. It is not intuitive to get through the answers in time without practice.

@MissSquiggles DS12 is academically able yet his primary school denied his abilities then failed to meet his needs after we paid for an assessment of his abilities.

I don't understand. What do you mean the school denied his abilities? I thought most primary schools don't do sets or streams.
Are you saying teachers didn't put him in a higher set?
Or are you saying that there were no sets, but the teachers thought he was just unruly and they didn't share your assessment of your child's talent?

Anyway, that your child didn't feel challenged enough at primary suggests he might benefit from grammar, true. (Note that no one is saying that grammar doesn't benefit the kids who attend it).
But it does not suggest:

• that no other primary might have challenged him
• nor that grammar was the only solution
• nor that every non-grammar state secondary would have been inappropriate. Like I said, many non-selective state secondaries use streams or sets

@elizo well kids do talk to each other don't they! We weren't going to enter our DS, mainly because we didn't think he would fit a grammar tbh rather than for ideological reasons but his friends were all being tutored and he decided he wanted to try. Anyway he didn't pass!

The whole system is so clearly outdated and old fashioned, they should've been abolished completely rather than this half arsed "oh well you can keep them if you want to".

We are in Kent and it's all parents talk about once your kids get to a certain age it's so bloody boring.

At some point we need to nurture the cleverest. That is the elite. Or do we treat them all the same and therefor we don't use our cleverest in the future.
That is not to say that we neglect the others, at later ages we seek the best for university from the entire population not just from the earlier winners.

@snoopfroggydawg Very true. But it's not just that - it's also that this system risks labelling an 11-year old who doesn't pass the test as some kind of failure, and this can have devastating consequences.

No, the alternative is not pretending that everyone is the same.
But 10-11 is far, far too young for this kind of selection, and the grammar selection is too flawed, because it doesn't favour those who mature later, nor those who excel in one subject but not all.

@turul At some point we need to nurture the cleverest.
True - but not aged 10-11, that's far, far too young!!!

That is not to say that we neglect the others,

That is precisely what happens in practice, though.

Let me ask you this: was social mobility much better when we had grammar schools everywhere? And no, I'm not talking about single, isolated cases - I am talking systemically.

I’m instinctively in agreement with ParentOfOne but I’m not fully confident in this position. I sometimes feel with education that the most important question is: What do Finland do?

Kent has been selective since year dot. My impression from growing up there is that social mobility is pretty bad - is this accurate?

I agree with this entirely. By the time kids get to uni and are competing for both uni places and then jobs after uni - they're competing with a global application pool. And globally the selective education system starts young - it's the only way to separate out students who need more of an academic challenge and nurture rather than stagnate, in the name of fairness.

It isn't fair that children who aren't academically bright will still get into selective education because of expensive and intensive tutoring - but that's just life. Some could also argue that families who focus all their time, money and attention into academics from nursery age (like a lot of Asian families) have an unfair advantage over families with academic talent but no experience or inclination to cultivate it. I read a stat that Indian and Chinese are now the highest earning groups in the UK but 50 years ago that wasn't the case so a focus on education has definitely helped immigrants who didn't arrive in the UK and immediately go to private school or even grammar. The same way where I live in the UK, the wealthiest families are all tradespeople who've done really well and won't go into the grammar/uni system but carry on in trades. I'd never be able to break into trade like they can or be any good at it but don't begrudge them using their network, connection and families to carry it forward. Or kids who break into competitive sport early on and are selected into jr leagues - no one expects fairness in sports.

Everyone has some advantage in some area or the other and kids should learn early on life isn't fair BUT school and exam results are not the be all end all.

For late developers, they can still go to uni at any age or bypass it completely and get a job working their way up (where natural talent is more noticeable away from your academic credentials). There's more good uni places and grad jobs than grammar school places so clearly going to a basic state comp isn't hindering anyone. Grammar schools are only seen as a problem by people who don't think long term that life doesn't end once you're done with school - it's just beginning as there's plenty of opportunities to catch up. And Grammar schools may have a large number of privileged kids but they are also a lifeline for poorer families with brilliant kids who'd get bored and restless in a class where others are not at the same level - and can't afford private.

They are allowed to teach it. Lots of the Kent Primaries do prep sessions.

DD's state primary in London ran free after-school sessions for children sitting 11+ for state grammars or private schools to prep them all on NVR and VR.

I was interested that the local branches of Explore Learning were also packed with kids studying for the 11+ in English and Maths (as well as those doing general support) - my DD was pretty much the only white child there.

Yes it’s elitist. Yes it’s brutal. Yes they are full of middle class / ex prep school / BAME kids from cultures that prioritise educational achievement.

Having said that I went through the process with DC1 and I’ll do it again with DC2. They are both autistic and grammar SEN departments are dominated by academic ND kids, so from my point of view, I’m prioritising the type of school best suited to their needs. It’s not actually about the academic results for me.

What strikes me is much of the negativity that swirls around grammar schools is the uniquely British notion that being academically able should be kept quiet, shushed and unrewarded. Sporting or artistic success is fair game, because that requires hard work, but the brightest kids are bright by an accident of birth and it’s therefore unbecoming to even acknowledge it, in the most part. White British families - in the main - don’t prioritise education.

I disagree that abolishing grammar schools and crippling private schools with VAT will improve our education system. It shouldn’t be a race to the bottom.

Edit:

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.

@ThisPageIsBlank puts it perfectly

@Jellycats4life yours is a strawman argument.

Where in this thread do you infer that those of us who don't like grammar schools think that "academic ability should be kept quiet"? Where? Who said what that makes you think that??

Yes, some families do not care much about academic success.
Yes, this can happen more in white British families than in families from other backgrounds.
Yes, I, too, think it's wrong.

But no, this doesn't mean that all those opposing grammar schools think "academic ability should be kept quiet"!!

VAT on private schools has nothing to do with this conversation. FWIW I think it's a very wrong move which risks being counterproductive.

As for pretending everyone is the same (another ludicrous strawman argument) , I have already explained why opposing grammar schools doesn't necessarily mean that, and how a number of things in the current system don't mean that, like admission by banding, streams, sets etc