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?

@SuzieNine"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?"

Because the tests are supposed to be unpreparable for. They are supposed to be tests a child can go into cold and either pass or fail on basic ability or absence thereof. This myth has to be maintained otherwise it becomes obvious that it's largely a test of social class, not intelligence.

I live in NI my youngest did the 11+ (she's 28 now so ages ago) and I was delighted at the time. We are surrounded by grammar schools and I knew that here (in NI) the peer pressure to work hard always do homework etc would be apparent in the grammar schools. Having said that no way would I have let her do it without tutoring and eleventy billion practise tests. In the primary schools here they start practising for the transfer tests in P5 2 years before they actually sit it. A massive part of me thinks they should be banished but a tiny bit is so glad she passed it and is working in a great job now

@Jellycats4life I doubt she was referring to SEN kids.

SEN families are unfortunately being failed left right and centre. There can be good SEN provisions and bad SEN provisions in a comp like in a grammar - I am not sure there is anything in grammar schools that makes them intrinsically better for these kids.

In fact, I remember reading that grammars tend to have way fewer SEN kids. It's great that this grammar has worked for you, but I doubt your experience is representative of the needs of SEN families.

@Jellycats4life not every school suits every child. Some comprehensives are excellent for children with SEN. Some grammars are appalling. Using the expression "throwing to the lions" to describe comprehensive education in general is what I was talking about.

I doubt your experience is representative of the needs of SEN families.

I never said it was. Don’t be obtuse.

What I did say is that autistic kids like mine, who are academically able and have special educational needs (known as twice exceptional in some circles) invariably don’t have their needs met at school. At all. This is because primary schools and comps alike have to focus their attention and resources on those with the highest support needs. Which is understandable but not exactly fair or ideal.

I am not sure there is anything in grammar schools that makes them intrinsically better for these kids.

Of course they are, for the obvious reason that they are not so busy dealing with kids with complex behaviour and learning needs that they forget about the quiet, high-masking, highly anxious, studious kids. They are such an overlooked group - full of potential but generally ignored with a shrug and a chorus of “they’re fine”.

Totally agree.

I went to a grammar. My kids go to a comp.

They’ve performed/are performing overall much better than I did academically. And against a background of pupils that are more reflective of the overall mix of society. They have a broader curriculum and so many more extra curricular options than I ever did. They also don’t have the arrogance about them that I did, feeling I was “above” other kids - until a good dose of real life knocked that out of me, thankfully.

The problem is that not all comps are excellent comps like the one my kids go to. If they were, we wouldnt need this discussion.

I am 100% sold on the comprehensive system having been exposed to both, where the comprehensive is well managed.

Oh and just to add, one of my kids has ADHD so we’re in the SEN mix.

@SuzieNine probably because primary schools are so busy preparing for SATs and teaching the national curriculum.

@Crispynoodle in NI, do the primaries/juniors help with 11+ preparation?

@dizzydizzydizzy "probably because primary schools are so busy preparing for SATs and teaching the national curriculum"

Well, it is partly that. Primary schools don't have resources to spare to tutor kids for an exam a minority will take. But it is mostly the maintainance of the myth of the untutorable test.

In a county that doesn't have only grammars and secondary modern, the state primary schools will have to focus on the national curriculum and SATS. They aren't measured by how many of the kids get into grammar schools, so there's no place in their curriculum for it.

But I find it odd that this is also the case in counties such as Kent where the secondary modern system is the default. As someone else has said, the 11+ is supposed to be untutorable, a measure of inmate intelligence, which as everyone knows is the biggest piece of bullshit ever.

@dyedinthewoolcheeseeater "But I find it odd that this is also the case in counties such as Kent where the secondary modern system is the default. As someone else has said, the 11+ is supposed to be untutorable, a measure of inmate intelligence, which as everyone knows is the biggest piece of bullshit ever"

If primary schools routinely prepared children for the Kent Test, then that piece of bullshit would be exposed for what it is. And the whole edifice would collapse. Also, where would a primary school find the resources to tutor a select group for a non compulsory exam only a minority will take?

Ah, I assumed that in grammar counties everyone takes the 11+, like SATs.

The thing is that it would be totally inappropriate for any primary school to dedicate sufficient resource to an activity that only 20% of the pupils will benefit from, to the detriment of the rest, and where nothing equivalent exists that the other 80% can benefit from.

If you were the parent of a child of about 60th centile intelligence/ability would you think it ok for the school to be spending more per child on an elite advantaged group and less on your child?

If there were a range of different kinds of specialist secondary schools, all equally tough to get into but with a range of different skills and attributes being tested for, with only one of those being the grammar, then it would be fair enough for primaries to have an equitable mix of preparation classes with something for everyone. With the system as it is, it is more appropriate for schools to use their resources equitably and for grammar prep to be done on the time and dime that is outside the school's resources, but would be even more appropriate for such advantages to be not able to be bought within the state system and all grammar schools privatised and paid for.

@SuzieNine "Ah, I assumed that in grammar counties everyone takes the 11+, like SATs"

No-I think about half do-but don't quote me on that. But it really is about the maintainance of the untutorable myth....

In Bucks they do. You can opt out but very few do - in 2023 (2024 figures not available yet) it was a 90+% uptake.

But of course that completely supports @CurlewKate 's point about the 'untutorable' myth. Because you could easily do whole-class 11+ classes if you wanted to.. It is a very deliberate choice that schools do not do so.

Also the argument that is peddled in Bucks is that the non-grammars are 'all.ability' schools and perfectly.capable of catering for the top percentile. Which is a weird argument when you think about it, because if you totally believe that, why would you need different types of.school...?

@thing47 whole class 11+ lessons would be useless for the majority of the class and actively detrimental for some, if the class has a full spectrum of ability range in line with general population distribution. The test is aiming to find the most able 20% so theoretically perhaps the top 25%-30% might benefit from the teaching assuming that luck and practice might mean a better score for someone who would otherwise be just below the cutoff. The additional content taught before the pupils were ready would just be upsetting, confusing and confidence-quashing for those who aren't near the target cohort.

Because you could easily do whole-class 11+ classes if you wanted to.. It is a very deliberate choice that schools do not do so.

Genuine question - what is the deliberate choice here @thing47? I’m also a bit confused by what @CurlewKate has said about schools maintaining the “untutorable” myth. Not being deliberately obtuse, i just need to have things spelled out to me sometimes 😂

I totally agree that “untutorable” is a myth (and “my child didn’t do much as sniff a revision guide” is a humblebrag).

The future of education in Kent

https://news.kent.gov.uk/articles/consultation-opens-on-strategy-for-the-future-of-education-in-kent

Possibly more interesting for what it does not say, reference or recognise…..

https://letstalk.kent.gov.uk/education-strategy-25-30/widgets/107408/documents

The Kent consultation ended in mid December. The link above suggests that the consultation report is available to view in the documents section. Though none of the docs on that linked page as far as I can see actually reference or include it.

would be fascinating to see what the responses were, and how many it received.

@Jellycats4life I’m also a bit confused by what ^ has said about schools maintaining the “untutorable” myth. Not being deliberately obtuse, i just need to have things spelled out to me sometimes 😂^

Advocates of the 11+ test and the grammar system tend to claim that it is a test of innate ability and intelligence, and so it is inherently fair.
They tend to either deny that tutoring helps achieve better results, or play down how much it can help. They do this because otherwise they would have to admit that the test favours those who can afford said tutoring.

In fact, someone with a background in psychology explained, a few posts above, that familiarity and repeated testing do help, and that's why certain types of IQ tests shouldn't be administered too frequently.

I also remember reading that, when a US company started publishing material to practice one of these tests (maybe the American SAT, not sure), it was sued because the company making the test claimed it was "untutorable" (spoiler: it wasn't). I'd like to find the details but I can't seem to find that story any more.

That’s not true @PokerFriedDips. There is a certain percentage who will pass easily, and a certain percentage who probably won’t pass regardless of how much help they receive. But by far the biggest proportion will be in and around the middle and many of these would benefit from familiarisation classes.

Instead it is left to outside tutors and parents, as PPs have explained, may not be in a position to access tutoring. In an all-grammar county the DCs are going to take the test anyway, it would be much fairer to let all DCs see what the test contains.

although personally I favour just ditching the 11+, this would partially address the inequality.

Not obtuse at all @Jellycats4life a very valid question. In essence, schools (and other authorities) have to say the 11+ exam is untutorable because otherwise the logical conclusion is that tutoring is beneficial.

Once they admit that they’re in a whole world of pain because it’s quite clear to all of us that some people are in a better position to access tutoring than others and therefore the test is inherently unfair. They can’t afford to admit that.

@thing47 in what way will the 50% of a mixed ability class who are of below-average intelligence and ability, who are totally unsuitable for a grammar school education and would definitely fail the 11+ no matter how many prep classes they sit in, benefit from being forced through prep classes that are totally divorced from their current attainment level covering content they aren't ready for? All I can see it achieving would be hammering home to them a firm sense of their own inadequacy. It would be totally unethical.

It equally seems entirely unethical that there is a higher quality of state school that is only accessible to a small demographic. Leaving aside the fact that wealthy families can buy in to a higher chance of success, which is abhorent - imagine if within the NHS there was a separate resource of hospitals reserved only for people with blue eyes, that were an altogether more pleasant place to be treated and to work and had much higher success rates.

@thing47 ". In an all-grammar county the DCs are going to take the test anyway, it would be much fairer to let all DCs see what the test contains."

Ah-I think this is where the misunderstanding has happened. They don't all do the test. Only I think about (don't quote me!) half do.