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?

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??

I‘m not talking about individuals in this thread, @ParentOfOne I’m talking about British culture, in which no one must have ideas above their station, and bright kids must keep their light under a proverbial bushel, because no one likes a show off.

May I ask, if you object to the grammar system so strongly, why aren’t you voting with your feet and not entering your child for the 11+? Hypocritical, no?

My daughter started grammar school three years ago, my son started 20 years ago.

@Jellycats4life
So you agree that many of the people opposing grammars do NOT take the view that academic ability should be kept quiet and, in fact, agree with you that more families should care more? Great!

No, it is not hypocritical. You are of course welcome to disagree and feel smug about it, I couldn't care less.

I have already answered it multiple times.

I do not support grammar schools. I never lobbied for more grammars nor for the expansion of existing ones.

It just so happens that doing well in this test increases my kid's chances, because one good school is partially selective, and a few decent ones are not selective but use banding, and the max admission distance is always greater for the top band, so doing well in the test means a greater chance of admission.

If in my area I had a choice of excellent schools close enough that admission would be certain, I wouldn't bother with this test. Is it my fault that I don't?

And, yes, we had researched both primary and secondary schools before moving here, and this was the best compromise for our situation, our budget and our needs.

Absolutely. Streaming within schools would be much more effective than silo-ing you at the age of 11 using a test that doesn't really test what it's supposedly designed to test, i.e. basic intelligence.

What people have an issue with is kids being "written off" at the age of ten, when we know that academic development and growth is different for each child. Alongside the issue raised in the OP about the tests not being accessible to some demographics because of how they are designed.
All state schools should be able to cater for and support the needs of all children. We know that's not the case, but the existence of grammar schools is not the way to fix this.

I've got a question: I live in a non-grammar area in London. There are grammar schools that kids from my area can and do apply to, though.
Because those schools take kids from a very wide geographical area, is the test taken / necessary scores to access them higher than, for instance, in Kent where the vast majority of kids will take the Kent Test? I suppose I mean if that area going to a grammar is the norm, then are entrance exam expectations lower?

School admissions have never been 'fair'.

If you live outside the catchment area of an outstanding state school and do not have the finances to move, no matter how much you believe the school suits your child. They will not be going.

If you do not meet the criteria for entry to a faith school. Your child will never gain entry and will not be going, even if you live next door. The ones near me require you to have been christened/baptised within 3 months of birth. There is no way to circumvent this criteria.

If you can not afford the fees for a private school. You child will not be going.

Schools that use selection tests either academic, music, sport etc require parents that are aware of the test, apply for the test and prep for the test. If you have parents who either are not aware or do not care about education that child will not be attending the school.

People talk about removing grammar/private schools and that will magically improve state schools. It may improve a small number of schools but there are far more issues that need to be dealt with to ensure a better education for all children. Fix these issues first and then you can have the debate about removing grammar schools because as it stands why would anyone who has a child going through the present system vote to remove schools that produce good results.

I feel it’s worth pointing out that, for those of us who are troubled by grammar/private education, 1) we may have partners who don’t share our views and have to work around this, and 2) what’s best for our children under current circumstances may trump our principles. If that makes me a hypocrite then so be it. I’m done with wringing my hands over it.

I've got a question: I live in a non-grammar area in London. There are grammar schools that kids from my area can and do apply to, though.
Because those schools take kids from a very wide geographical area, is the test taken / necessary scores to access them higher than, for instance, in Kent where the vast majority of kids will take the Kent Test? I suppose I mean if that area going to a grammar is the norm, then are entrance exam expectations lower? @dyedinthewoolcheeseeater

Yes, they tend to be what is called 'super-selective'.

Grammar schools in places like Kent tend to take the top 20% of local children and there's basically a pass mark. It's not particularly hard to get a place.

The super-selectives take the top say 120 candidates that sit the test regardless of distance. There are other schools that have a percentage that get in based on high score from out of catchment and a percentage within catchment who may qualify with lower scores.

Getting these places is pretty brutal. Take somewhere like Henrietta Barnet for example where thousands of girls sit for the exams.

I find the idea that the grammar system results in children being “written off” at ten pure hyperbole. Who is writing these children off exactly?

I don’t see families writing off their own children when they don’t get into grammar? I don’t see comprehensive schools being annoyed that they receive the high achieving kids who didn’t quite make the grade?

“Written off” is just meaningless hand-wringing.

@Jellycats4life just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Some families apply enormous pressure to their kids, triggering all kinds of anxieties.

Some times the pressure comes from the kids' peers.

Some times, even in a loving nurturing environment, kids will feel a failure if their siblings and friend get in, and they don't.

But, hey, you don't see it, so it doesn't exist, right?

None of this means there shouldn't be selection. There should be. But not at the age of 10!

None of this means there shouldn't be selection. There should be. But not at the age of 10!

Have you seen the 4+ assessment on the primary thread where parents have been tutoring their kids since birth? 😂. Some parents don't care, they just want to be part of the prestigious gang and will do anything it takes no matter what.

As my name suggests I am not a fan of grammars. There are so many negative aspects. I am not in a grammar school area, but we have a couple of grammars locally and the lengths parents go to get their child over the line and into the "best schools" is ridiculous.

I agree with you. A friend’s daughter recently got into one of the most competitive grammars in London (hundreds and hundreds of applicants). She was heavily tutored, but also played her part and committed to the tutoring and studied hard. I think there was one evening session a week in person and a 3hr session online on a weekend afternoon. Plus homework etc set by the tutor throughout the week. It must have cost a lot. I suppose some kids sail in having never looked at a past paper or practised but from what I saw in London, kids were tutored a lot!

I have seen it. It happened to many kids in my child’s year group. They have gone onto the local comp and are happy. Of course you would rather convince yourself that kids’ lives are ruined by 11+ failure but most are just getting on with it.

Some may grow up and wonder “what if?” but that’s life 🤷‍♀️ Others will likely say they were glad to have attended a school within walking distance and not had to contend with intense academic pressure.

I can relate to the boredom. We are London bordering various grammar boroughs and it did my nut in. People became obsessed. It was hard to hold my nerve at times.

I explained to DS he wouldn’t be doing the 11*, despite all his friends doing it, and the local schools were perfectly good. I also told him grammar schools don’t take many poor children and that I didn’t agree with that and felt it would be better to be with a good mix. He accepted it. I didn’t feel he was in a position at 10 to make an informed decision. Sixth form is his choice, secondary was ours. We considered his views but made the call.

One of my good friends teaches at a grammar school. All the kids have been tutored to get in… and the vast majority still have a tutor at the school to keep up. So really, the good GCSE results are thanks to the outside tutoring, not necessarily the school itself.

Streaming is a terrible idea. Have a look at self fulfilling prophecy.. teachers are human and sadly their opinions of their pupils does impact performance. And no good at all for SEN

Are you against setting as well? Or just streaming?

I think sets make more sense than streams, because I think it makes more sense to let kids be in different sets for different subjects.

Are you against sets, too?
What would be your preference?

I do believe we cannot delude ourselves into thinking kids are all the same. That's the opposite extreme to grammars. I think we need something in between.

My dd has dyslexia and she if went to a school that streamed she would probably have been in the non academic stream, now she is looking at doing very academic subjects at A level.. it lacks flexibility in my opinion.

Setting is a bit better but teachers get lazy and have negative thoughts (and behave differently in some cases) on the lower sets which again can impact pupils unfairly. So it’s something I don’t like but I can see why some schools do it.

My dd’s school only sets for maths everything else is mixed ability and it’s been a positive experience - this was why we wanted this school for her and we were very lucky that she got a place... it a standard state school with high aspirations.

Of course all children are not the same, but the consensus among teachers and education professionals, is all children should be exposed to the same high quality teaching and that doesn’t always happen when schools set sadly.

i don’t necessarily think selective is always the way to nurture talent though.

My youngest is very capable but has always suffered from extreme anxiety and perfectionism (suspect masking ADHD but that’s another story)

At 11 I’m certain she could have passed the 11+ but knowing she constantly compares herself to the performance of others I felt strongly that being a strong performer in a mixed ability school was a much better option for her than being a middling performer in a selective school where her confidence would have taken a nosedive. So I didn’t let her take the exam (even though she asked). She’s doing really really well in her comp and I’m certain this is one of the factors that had helped (even though she CONSTANTLY compares herself still!)

I always find is fascinating that with some things like (just some examples) music, running or artistic talent there is a general acceptance that there is an element of genetic ability and teaching should be aimed at the level of the individual. However when it comes to academic ability apparently the best way is for everyone to be taught at the same pace.

I come from a long line of teachers. The best way (imo) for all people to attain is to be taught at the right pace. Sets do this. It's not helpful to the very bright to be held back, they get bored and depending on personality may be disruptive and hold other students back. It is not helpful for anyone to be in an environment where the pace is too fast. It is disheartening and can lead to life long problems with self esteem.

I support grammars, I also support channelling those who struggle with exams into careers rather than an endless run of resits. A relative of mine has a fantastic career in engineering after my DM (a teacher) saw that he was never going to pass his GCSEs and got him onto an apprenticeship. The focus should be on streaming and career training. Not everyone is academically bright, in the same way as not everyone can run fast, or draw like Picasso, or play the piano like Mozart. Why isn't it ok to say this out loud?

I have advised my daughters who are of child bearing age not to move to Kent (at least the bits that don't border an adjacent authority) - even though we live here (moved recently) as the school system is so dreadful. The selective system is county wide, and all but a handful of the selective schools take the top 25% of ability according to the Kent Test. So the non-selectives are full of children who have been deemed to be failures at the age of 11, and the selectives aren't brilliantly academic. What a terrrible state of affairs - it benefits no-one. I work in one of the not very selective selectives (needed a job!), having worked in a superselective in a London borough previously. I don't object to those as they are so selective and draw from such a wide area that they have minimal impact on the local school environment. And in my experience such schools really are for the ferociously academic with most kids getting 8s and 9s at GCSE, and are brimming with intellectual curiosity. Would be lovely to see that here!

Of course it's ok to say that. The issue is that 10 is much too young to decide who is academic and who isn't. Several PPs have now made this point and as yet none of the grammar school supporters have convincingly made a case for it being the appropriate age to decide what sort of schooling a child is suited to for the next 5 years.

I'm not against academic selection per se, but i am strongly against it taking place at 10.

16 is also too young!! I work with 16-19 year olds and believe me very few know what job or career they would like. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we make our teenagers narrow their educational opportunities at 14 first with GCSE options and then even more at 16.

The whole system is flawed in my view. But that’s another thread 😂