Those that do take the test also less likely to pass, regardless of prior attainment
Disadvantaged students are less likely than their more advantaged peers with similar attainment to sit and pass entrance exams for selective schools. That’s one of the findings of a new study, The illusion of fair selection: barriers to accessing selective education for the disadvantaged in England, published in the peer-reviewed journal British Journal of Sociology of Education. The study also finds that introducing an opt-out system for the test would be likely to only deliver a small boost to representation for disadvantaged students.
The study used an analysis of population-level data from Kent, where there is a high concentration of grammar schools, and examined two distinct stages of the selection process: whether pupils choose to sit the entrance test, and whether they go on to pass it. They found that 67 per cent of students classed as more advantaged – those not eligible for free school meals (FSM) – were able to take a test, compared to just 40 per cent of pupils who received FSM. The difference was not purely about the pupils’ academic attainment: even among pupils who scored highly in their Key Stage 2 SATs, 84 per cent of non-FSM pupils sat the 11+, compared to just 56 per cent of FSM pupils. The disadvantaged students who did take the exam were also less likely to pass it than their more advantaged peers of similar attainment.
Lead author Dr Binwei Lu, of Zhejiang University and Durham University commented: ‘Even when pupils are academically capable, substantial barriers of awareness, confidence and school encouragement seem to discourage less advantaged families from signing their children up to selection tests. When disadvantaged students do sit the 11+, they are less likely than equally attaining but more advantaged peers to successfully secure a place at a selective grammar school, and the gap between these two groups becomes more evident at higher levels of national test performance. It is therefore over-simplifying to suggest that the lower proportion of FSM pupils passing the selective school test is entirely the result of their lower academic attainment.’
The researchers also considered whether prominent policy reform proposals to address the underrepresentation of disadvantaged pupils, such as introducing an opt-out system for the tests or giving disadvantaged pupils extra marks, would make a difference. In order to test whether the representation of disadvantaged students at grammar schools would increase if all students sat the 11+, the researchers conducted a simulation. They found that introducing an opt-out system for selection tests, rather than the existing opt-in process, would increase the proportion of disadvantaged pupils at selective schools, but only moderately, from 7.8 per cent to 12 per cent. They also found that using different pass marks for FSM and non-FSM pupils would only achieve a proportional representation between the two groups of pupils if there was a substantial difference in the pass marks. The researchers suggest that ‘it seems likely that such a large differential in pass marks would not be considered appropriate’.
Co-author Dr Xin Shao, of UCL Institute of Education, said: ‘Our research tells us that the fundamental problem here is not the mechanics of selection to these exclusive schools, although it remains important at the current stage if selective schooling is retained’. Dr Lu added: ‘It is more about the much deeper social inequalities that shape a child’s chances long before they ever sit the test’.
The research team acknowledge that the study does have some limitations. Notably, it is based on local authority-level data and therefore the findings may not generalise fully to other areas with different admissions practices, catchment patterns or levels of competition. They call for further research across other selective areas in England, as well as international comparisons with other countries that operate early-age academic selection.