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?

@privatenonamegiven if you are not a big fan of sets, what system do you prefer?

I see your points. I don't have a very strong view as I'm not an expert. But I remember being bored to death in certain classes, and asking my parents for tutoring in some subjects because we were just not doing enough at school.

I like the systems where students don't choose just 3 subjects for A level. Narrowing down your university choice at 16 is too much (with A levels, you cna be undecided between medicine and biology, but typically no subject combination gives you access to both medicine and engineering). Plus not making it compulsory to study maths and English till 18 hurts the literacy and numeracy of many teenagers.

I think that in the French and Italian systems there is a middle school and then various kinds of secondaries which start around 14, from the more to the less academic, but there are still options for someone who has started a less academic secondary to do university if they mature enough later.

I'm sure there are huge imprecisions in this summary. I was just trying to make the point that it seems more sensible to me to delay the selection a bit (14 is more sensible than 10) and still leave a degree of flexibility.

I agree as it happens @privatenonamegiven . And quite a few educationalists I know would be in favour of scrapping exams at 16 too.

But as you say, beyond the scope of this thread which already has enough on its plate 😀

There is a reason why independent schools traditionally started at 13.

I went to a grammar, and that was also 13 (and used Common Entrance rather than 11+)

The problem is that schools are now totally set up for a big shift at 11, so it would mean over hauling the education system.

Countries like Italy switch at 14 - with the most academic going to the Liceo, the science kids going to the Scientifico and the ones for whom a vocational route is more suitable going to the technical colleges that tend to specialise in whatever the big local industry is.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow but don't many universities in Italy have their own admission tests?

I think that's a fairer system. If you went to a less academic secondary school but then really matured and caught up on your own, you still have the chance to study certain subjects at universities. I suppose that not many kids who study a non-academic secondary will do nuclear physics at uni, but at least selection is delayed, and is not as definitive as in England, right?

Italian universities are a very mixed bag.

There are some excellent private ones that have demanding entrance exams, and a huge number where as long as you pass the leaving cert at school you can just show up.

Things may have changed now - I hope so... but friends of mine were in classes with so many students enrolled that there was no space for them all in the lecture theatres, and a lot of courses were purely theoretical (not great if you're studying medicine). They also seemed to be there FOREVER.

I don't think there is a simple answer to what you've described in the system we have tbh.

I too prefer some of the international systems you mention. I have taught on the international baccalaureate course, in a UK state college, that was brilliant and much better than A levels in my humble opinion. Alas, the course was dropped not because students did not do extremely well but because of the way the government funded the course. It became too expensive and the college was making a loss...

Definitely agree with you that delaying the selection is something that needs to be done. Personally, if I was education secretary I would be getting educational experts in along with parents and young people, and redesigning the whole system. But I fear they're too many invested parties who want to keep the status quo sadly..

In my limited circle it hasn't meant anything at 18+

One friend's two adult children now work in fast food and a high street shop. Minimum wage type jobs ( I'm not knocking that here I've done that myself just explaining)
One had a baby at 19 and doesn't work ( hasn't ever I don't think)

I had it rammed down my throat a little by the first friend when our children were 11/12 that hers would do significantly better with much better prospects later on.
Neither of her children went past sixth form. Mine are both at university having attended a normal comp. Both my daughters sat the 11+ but didn't pass and it hasn't affected their outcome post 18.
I now don't see the point of it and if I had younger children wouldn't put them in for the test

Just eliminate it, as was done decades ago across most of the country.

In our area every child trying for grammar is tutored. Some keep quiet on it. Some use big centres like explore learning where they work on line with help. Most for 12-18 months at £50-100 a week. Some more. Plus house prices are higher near most popular grammars. So no way a level playing field. Not even close.

Rotors in london are up to £75 an hour I think now. So that plus whatever the other three hours cost. Great for them but impossible for most. And then a lot will carry on with tutors 'to keel up'

Anecdote not data but one of mine has done pretty much that @ParentOfOne . Missed 11+ by a margin, went to a then not terribly good secondary modern, now has a first-class Masters in infectious diseases from one of the most famous institutions in the world in that field. She specialises in vector-borne diseases and some of her Masters dissertation has been published as part of a wider study.

Turns out she is a talented laboratory researcher. Not something that would have been obvious at 10.

I did it years ago. No one was ever tutored.

Things have changed in the decades since, believe me

Obviously??? May I ask what your experience of corporate recruitment is like? Because I can't think of many people who know how it works who'd describe it in such a naïve, idealistic and unrealistic way.

Ummm... well, for a number of years I conducted final interviews for graduate scheme applicants to make the final recommendations on who to award the places to for one of the largest international firms in my sector. This involved reviewing their profiles, initial applications, the scores from the initial psychometric testing and non-verbal reasoning tests used to sift the applications, their performance in group exercises and the observations and notes from their first one 1:1 interview with a more junior member of management. We had several hundred applicants per place, and people could not apply at all without meeting stringent academic criteria.

The timed non-verbal reasoning tests were extremely useful for distinguishing between the innate abilities of a cohort of young people all of whom had achieved top grades throughout school and university.

What's your direct experience in corporate recruitment, OP?

@ThisPageIsBlank Respectfully, I do not believe you.

Either you have made it all up, or you have become so embedded in the process that you ended up drinking your own kool-aid.

Your belief that corporations would be all over a better, more efficient recruitment process, if it existed, really cracked me up.

You sounded like one of those bullshit videos about how company X lives and breathes its values to make the world a better place.

I do not believe that someone with a modicum of critical thinking and actual experience can view the shambolic, inefficient, convoluted and just generally completely fucked up recruitment process in the modern corporate world with your kind of rose-tinted glasses. I just can't.

My direct experience is many years on both sides of the fence, as a candidate applying, and in the business, recruiting for the business itself (not as a recruiter but as a business person).

My indirect experience is all the horrific experiences that friends, acquaintances and ex-colleagues shared, including 4 people close to me, who have spent between 5 and 30 years in HR and recruitment.

The two most recurring common themes are how random the whole process is, and how frequently certain approaches go in and out of fashion - e.g. brainteasers used to be all the rage, then Google ditched them, but other companies still use them, etc.

@ThisPageIsBlank Respectfully, I do not believe you.

I really don't care whether you do.

However, I do resent being called a liar on a public forum. If you are going to openly accuse me of lying then report my post to Mumsnet and I'll happily provide them the name of the firm I worked for and they'll be able to verify it from LinkedIn etc.

Who do you think you are to accuse other people of being liars because you dislike their answers to your (rather impertinent and rude) personal questions that attempted to disparage their views because you believe you must know far, far more than everyone else?

And frankly, HR and "recruiters" know nothing about recruiting decent candidates. Recruiters are trying to place people wherever they can to make money. They view people as a commodity. The candidate is their product, not their client. Obviously such people have dubious morals and aren't always acting in the candidate's (or their client's!) best interest. They simply want the commission for placing people, they do not care if they are the best candidate or not, or whether it is a good fit. Just that a contract is signed so they get paid.

As for HR, they should be left only to deal with contract negotiations etc. They have no idea about the expertise required for technical or skilled roles because by definition the role is outside their skillset, so the further they are kept away from the recruitment process, the better.

Hence why companies/ firms use a range of tools and exercises and tests to assess candidates across a number of areas of skill, appropriate to the role, and if they know what they are doing the process is administered by the senior management of the department/ business area who are actually recruiting the employee because they know what to look for.

The idea that you think some clueless person from a recruitment firm or HR department is a business expert or has any sway in which candidates get places on competitive graduate schemes or on what basis these decisions are made is laughable.

@ThisPageIsBlank It's not a matter of disliking a different opinion (plenty of different opinions on this thread I disliked) - it is a matter of the most striking disbelief, which is incompatible with what anyone with a modicum of experience will have witnessed.

When you say/imply that these tests are effective because corporations use them, and if there were a better system corporations would find and use that - that's an incredibly naïve view, which assumes an efficiency that is rare to find in the real world.

The mere fact that these tools have changed so much over the years, e.g. that Google ditched brainteasers while other companies still swear by them, clearly suggests that the matter is way more subjective and way less objective and scientific than you want to believe.

What next - are you gonna tell me that the corporations you worked for felt like families? That layoffs are always justified because it wouldn't be in the companies' best interest to act irrationally?

The idea that you think some clueless person from a recruitment firm or HR department is a business expert or has any sway in which candidates get places on competitive graduate schemes or on what basis these decisions are made is laughable.

I never said nor implied that. Your poor text comprehension skills are shocking. I said that the experience of HR people, including very senior HR people, is relevant, especially if we are talking about the senior HR people who had a very clear and direct say in how these processes were to be run. I wasn't talking about a 19-year old kid hired by a shoddy recruitment firm to do some cold calling.

But, if you prefer, you are more than welcome to think that you are right and I am just a very rude, bad person. I really do not care.

Fortunately these days, further on in my career, in my current role I don't have to bother myself with recruitment processes anymore.

I think it's worth noting though that I have rarely seen a thread here with such an aggressive approach from an OP, ostensibly asking for opinions and then refusing to listen to or consider any opposed to their own (or even read them properly, in most cases, requesting repeatedly information that had already been provided which usually indicates a deliberate refusal to take on board other perspectives). And very little constructive discussion or engagement. These sorts of behaviours indicate the precise opposite of the types of characteristics we were looking for in addition to academic ability i.e. flexibility of thought, adaptability, interpersonal skills, objectivity and a sense of perspective, logical reasoning, the ability to grasp the nuances of concepts and think through complex long-term outcomes, assess things objectively without clouding decisions with emotion, and fundamentally to behave with basic respect for others so that they didn't pose a huge reputational risk.

I see. So you're going to neither report my posts to attempt to substantiate your false accusation of me being a liar, nor have the decency to retract it.

Case closed.

@wrsfxb

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.

I don't know how much is nature vs nurture, but I see what you mean.
The difference, of course, is that a good school education is perceived as more important than sports or music training: poor numeracy and literacy skills have negative effect on people regardless of the career chosen, and for many careers good school grades are considered key.

Can someone explain why in grammar school counties the primary schools make no effort to prepare children for the tests required to get into secondary school? This strikes me as completely bizarre. If a county has decided to keep a grammar/secondary modern system, then surely it should organise its education system to support that system all the way through?

Living in a non-grammar county, the primary/junior schools make every effort to prepare children for the next stage of their education - I find it extraordinary that does not appear to happen in grammar counties.

Good question @SuzieNine. I don’t know.

I’m in Essex which isn’t a full grammar/secondary modern county but a county with four selectives and four super selectives.

The extent to which primary schools do not really speak of the grammar route, let alone prep suitable candidates for the 11+ is really weird. It almost feels taboo and hush-hush. Again, I think it stems from our state school culture and a reluctance to even acknowledge their most academically able children.

This is exactly why Essex grammars admit so many students from private preps, and so many South Asian kids from the London Borough of Redbridge. It all boils down to having motivated parents.

@ParentOfOne I absolutely agree with you. I haven't read the whole thread I'm afraid, because I'm not in the mood for reading people explaining that the 11+ is the best thing ever for social mobility and how their own child would not "survive" if they were "thrown to the lions" in a comprehensive school......

their own child would not "survive" if they were "thrown to the lions" in a comprehensive school......

It’s true for many kids though, whether you want to listen or not. My daughter is autistic and her primary school essentially refused to accept that an academically able, anxious, high masking autistic kid was deserving of support. They wouldn’t put her on their SEN register, even when I asked.

I knew the same would happen with the SEN department in a comp. Now grammar school SEN departments are almost exclusively devoted to supporting girls like mine. So many ND kids fall apart at secondary but mine is gently scaffolded and doing well. I can’t think of a better environment for these overlooked kids who are too autistic for the mainstream system but too academic for the SEN system.