The 11+ process for independent schools: is there a better way?

[IsThisRealLife]

Just: that.

My DC has offers to our preferred schools. I am grateful for that. And: deeply so.

As a result, part of me just wants to put the 11+ behind me - to focus on the 'broad, sunlit uplands' (as it were).

Still: cannot, in good conscience, fail to flag my belief that the process was more brutal, on many levels, than it needed to be.

I might be an outlier; would appreciate the thinking of others.

Ultimately, I hold out hope that the thinking of parents on the other side of the admissions process might incline powerful schools to recognise the need for change - and galvanise them to use their tremendous heft to help facilitate it.

Thus: this thread.

Again: might be alone in thinking this way. But: thought I'd throw it out there all the same.

Just about every comp around here does them. Not just the academies. Only one was SATs like the rest were more 11+ like.

They're really annoying because they make it so hard to figure out if your child will get in! I had to put those schools lower preference just because of the uncertainty.

The secondary admissions system in this country is totally bonkers.

I think it depends on the area of the country you are in and which schools you apply to. From speaking to other parents, it seems that the process in London is much more stressful, largely because so many children are applying to so many schools. The application:places ratio looks worse because it’s not unusual for children to be sitting 6/7 exams. If everyone only applied to 2, for example, the numbers wouldn’t look so daunting, and parents wouldn’t feel the need to be so competitive.

I think the process is not quite as stressful outside London, where children aren’t sitting so many exams. It’s more usual to sit 2 or 3. From my experience, the process for each school differs. The process for more competitive and academically selective schools is more rigorous and involved than it is for less academic and less popular schools. In reality though, a child probably needs to be able to cope with rigorous, through, testing and interviews if they are going to thrive in that type of school. It’s not for everyone. For the schools we looked at, I’d say that if a child finds the application process too difficult and brutal, it’s probably not the right school for them. I also agree with a previous poster that parents have a part to play; a parent getting stressed and putting too much pressure on a child isn’t going to help.

@Needlenardlenoo oh fair enough. I thought they were Independent Schools trying to dupe parents into thinking their child had made it into Grammar School. A bit like academy football for 9 year olds - the ones that are paid for so not actually affiliated to a proper club (those are always free of charge).

It would be much better if there were no grammars and everyone was educated in truly comprehensive schools. It would reduce the unfair advantage that private and grammar schools bring and improve comprehensives.

I don't agree (despite teaching in a comprehensive). I think it's important there's choice and education is too important to be left solely to the government!

Besides most of the best comprehensives select by house price.

This. It’s not essential to put your child under such intense pressure.

You're right, of course: the creation of a selective educational cohort - whether indie or grammar - necessarily requires a selection process. And: any parent who'd like their child to be part of the same has to accept that.

My question is related more to whether current selection processes might have room for improvement.

And when I say that, I don't just mean 'improvement' in terms of the experience for children and families (though that's a real concern of mine) but also: in terms of the degree to which those processes are actually generating the outcomes schools are looking for.

As an example: there is much discussion - rightly, IMHO - about extreme tutoring and student 'preparation'. But that discussion isn't just being had by families, it's being had, as I understand it, by schools as well.

Again, I think you're absolutely fair in suggesting that "if you want your child to be part of a handpicked cohort, then you have to put them through the process of being selected'.

But the question you asked next:

"How else would schools select?"

Is at the crux of what I'm trying to unpick with this thread.

Just wondering whether there are better ways of going about this. Perhaps not. But: very interested in understanding the thinking of others on this point.

I very much agree that it has got out of hand. When just a few marks in an exam is the distinction between the binary options of progressing to the next stage, or not, it's hardly surprising that there is an escalating level of tutoring which is benefiting no one really.

I'm pretty sure this is a uniquely London problem too: with good public transport and higher 'normal' commute expectations, lots of schools are 'within reach' for many so people apply to them all - and it really is the ratio of applicants to places that mean schools almost have no choice but to screen by exam.

Perhaps a centralised UCAS-style system limiting the number of places each child can apply to would be useful?

I wonder if some schools would actually love to be able to select based far more on interview than exam and would be thrilled if their number of applications dropped to make that possible (whilst staying higher than other schools' of course ;))

I absolutely take your point.

And: were we discussing something beyond education, I'd agree.

But: we are talking about education. And in the world we're in, as I see it at least, three related things are true:

First, education matters more than almost anything else in terms of life outcomes and possibilities. This is a truism; no gold star requested for stating the obvious;

Second, (much as one might wish it were not so) all educational opportunities in this society (as in many others) are not created equal. Nowhere close. Grammar schools and hyper-selective private secondaries offer their students profound advantages; and

Third, access to those institutions (more often than not) involves selection processes that can be quite intense.

So: if what stands between a capable, willing child and an (objectively) outstanding education is a process that is pressurised - perhaps even intensely so - should one opt out?

My view is/was: no.

But: that doesn't mean I don't wonder whether the intensity of the current process has room for improvement.

Thus: this thread.

I'm not looking for pity. I require none. Commiseration is welcome - though even that is secondary. I fully admit to having found this process challenging, and, being only human, it definitely feels good to know that I wasn't alone in that.

But, again: I'm on the other side of this, and the happy side of the other side - as it were. So am really just asking whether, in the estimation of parents who've just gone through this process, there might be ways of making it better for those families who will follow.

I don't know the answer to that. But I'm grateful for any insights shared.

The selection process is:

1. can your parents pay the fees?
2. are you bright enough to give us good grades when it comes to exams?

It’s selective not inclusive. They don’t want kids who can’t handle the 11+

Private schools are better for A levels IMO when children know what they’re signing up for themselves.

Excellent insights. Thank you @TiggerSnoozer

"I wonder if some schools would actually love to be able to select based far more on interview than exam and would be thrilled if their number of applications dropped to make that possible (whilst staying higher than other schools' of course ;))"

Mirrors my intuition exactly - though articulated with far more concision and precision. I really think parents and schools may be more aligned on this than mainstream thinking often allows.

State schools don’t have endless resources for children with EHCPs. They just don’t have the option to say no. I personally think any school shouldn’t be able to turn children away, whatever their needs.

The obvious way would be to have one exam which multiple private schools accepted, like the SATs in America. Then you sent your SAT to various schools and they decided whether to interview you.
I believe you can sit the SAT multiple times in America until you get the desired result.
Of course, if you can only sit it once, the disadvantage is that everything hangs on one day. And if you can sit it multiple times, that advantages parents or schools who can afford multiple test fees.

IMO the issue is less the number of exams but the number of applicants per place. I had friends who applied to consortia and their kids only had one exam for multiple schools - and if anything this just exacerbates the issue as basically every child is either offered all or none! And, as you say, with it all riding on one day, that's potentially even more stressful than multiple exams.

The schools compete with each other and try to draw you and your child in. It is like a luxury brand, the more expensive, the longer the waiting list etc the rarer, the more you will want it. And once you have waited and put in all the effort, you are less likely to say no because you have become “invested” and your kid is flattered they were offered a place and has attended x times already.

Reality is of course they could just do full on financial due diligence on you and probably know from the start which kids are going to get mostly 8 and 9s, especially for the really selective schools.

The messaging is highly sophisticated and over time has worked to make parents (especially in London) feel panicked and apply to multiple schools.

The large number of applications some families make is prblematic for everyone and especially schools,

Yes, agree, the large number of schools applied to is self perpetuating and helps nobody, especially schools who have to try to guess who will take their offer.

If everyone only applied to 3 schools (stretch, middle and back up) then it would enhance everyone’s chances of getting an offer from the school they actually want.

Agree.

On a certain level, many of the issues discussed by posters above seem connected - or at least appear to contain echoes of - an issue @TheOtherPhoneIsHere flagged very early on, namely: opacity.

In her/his comment, I understood the critique/concern to be focused on exam performance on early stages of the multi-stage indie admissions process.

That said, it seems, to me, at least, tied to a broader trend:

Perhaps it's something limited to a certain cohort of indie prep schools, but there's a strong emphasis in the London preps I'm familiar with on not providing anything to children - or parents - that might allow/incline them to compare performance within the classroom/year cohort.

Children are told not to share or discuss 'assessment' results of any kind - not to talk, at all, about their performance on anything involving marking. To see those things as personal indications of growth rather than inputs used for ranking.

In some, that idea is so entrenched that, on the open morning before the 11+ exams began, children's maths notebooks weren't available for parental review alongside their other work - the fear being, apparently, that parents would compare their children's work.

Even the results of broader testing - the CATs for example - are often treated like state secrets.

I'm torn on this.

On one hand: I celebrate the idea of day-to-day learning not being linked to 'performance' - of children bring able to make mistakes (and learn from them) as a function of their understanding of subject matter without the sense that they're being ranked as a result.

On the other - which plays into the issue of parents applying to a huge number of schools - with that degree of opacity, one can understand that it might be very difficult for parents know which schools to apply for given a total lack of understanding re: their children's standing amongst a given peer group.

All of that would seem to be amplified by the fact that many secondaries give no official, explicit guidance in terms of the sorts of (first round) scores they consider admissions baselines - meaning CEM or ISEB - nor any historical average (or range) of the CATs of admitted children.

Given how many parents are buying into the assessments proffered by Atom and others, might selective secondaries releasing that kind of data not be helpful?

Asking - not suggesting. Because really do wonder.

I think this stress and anxiety is a London thing.

We are not in London and did not find the independent school exams a burden. Dd is at a state primary; we didn’t do any tutoring beyond making sure she had actually covered the Year 5 curriculum which we did ourselves (disruption meant their class was behind and so had missed some maths content). Paid for a month of Atom so she could practise doing some online tests before the real thing. That was it. She enjoyed the assessment days and the schools made them fun and mixed up exams with art and dance sessions. Dd much preferred it to a normal day at school!

Also, maybe not being at a private prep reduces the stress. A tiny handful of kids at DD's state school were going for independent school exams and the school obviously took no part in preparing them. Therefore zero peer pressure and zero parental competitiveness.

Although Atom was useful for exposing DD to the format and to VR/NVR which isn't covered at state schools, I personally didn't find the Atom scores and target school trackers useful and I strongly suspect that they throw in absurdly hard curveball questions and score low to encourage you to pay more and for longer or to buy in to their tutoring packages. This too generates stress and panic. Some of the maths content that came up on the sample tests that DD did on Atom was only soluble if you'd covered KS4 material, whereas the real exams (rightly) didn't require knowledge of anything beyond the primary curriculum, they just tested it in a more demanding way that they would at SATs.

Completely agree re Atom!

I also agree that the stress is probably less outside London prep school bubbles.

Having said that - I have heard of some London state school kids who took various private 11+ exams and got virtually no offers, and not to the schools they hoped for. I think this was due to having no realistic guidance on their child’s chances of getting a place at those schools. At least prep schools can (or certainly should) give realistic guidance. So swings and roundabouts.

Fully agree on this. Going through the process from a state school is not that easy at all and I'm not sure it's less stressful because it's so opaque. It's virtually impossible to have any idea what is achievable, what isn't and how much prep is required, because the state schools resolutely refuse to engage, and don't have enough experience with this anyway. We engaged a tutor thinking this would be part of what they would provide (I thought what we were buying was more of a 'replacement for what is offered by a prep') and tbh it wasn't really, and I worked that out too late.

Moving out of London is an option for us, so we applied both within London and outside - the difference between the level of tutoring and apparent stress is night and day!

Again, I wonder if that's a London thing. I can't think of anywhere else where there would be such a density of families who can afford private that there's that level of competition. And also so many private schools that people can apply to so many different ones and so have kids taking days and days of exams (I don't know anyone who applied to more than 2 schools here). I'm glad we aren't in London as it sounds very stressful.

Agree with @caravela and @minipie

We used Atom for a while recently for Dc2 and I had strong suspicions its main goal was to encourage paranoia and for you to buy more packages and tutoring. I had a fiddle about with settings and it would show on a chart as showing DC as just slightly above tracking line of successful candidates for [very selective school]. Then I set it for a school that is still selective but much less so - the chart showed exactly the same but in reality the entry standards simply aren’t the same. Oh and look, links to tutoring and packages! Atom’s stranglehold on this market isn’t healthy.

We did 11+ from a state primary in London for Dc1 and I often describe it as bringing a knife to a gun fight. The preps I knew a few people at were drilling machines, the state school obviously wasn’t. Knowing only a handful of other parents going through it at the same time, it was very hard to know what schools were realistic and what weren’t and the primary couldn’t help as the vast majority went on to the local state secondaries - I knew DC was bright but whether they at the bar for particular highly selective schools was very hard to gauge. ultimately it worked out fine for us but I felt pretty in the dark.