Poorer pupils are less likely than their better-off peers to even sit 11-plus entrance exams for grammar schools, let alone pass them, new research suggests. Researchers believe that the disparity “shows how barriers to accessing selective education develop long before the selection and assessment process begins”. The under-performance of disadvantaged pupils in the tests compared to non-disadvantaged children is widely known. But a study published by the British Journal of Sociology of Education today found such pupils are far less likely to even take the exams, despite similar performance levels in their SATs. Researchers from Durham University, UCL, Zhejiang University and St Paul’s School conducted analysis of population-level data from Kent, which has high concentration of selective schools. They found 67 per cent of students not eligible for free school meals were able to take an 11-plus test, but this fell to 40 per cent of pupils who were eligible for free school meals. ‘Not just about attainment’ The report, authored by Binwei Lu, Jake Anders, Xin Shao and Joanne Bartley, warned the difference “is not just about these pupils’ academic attainment”. Looking at pupils who scored highly in key stage 2 SATs, 84 per cent of better-off pupils sat the 11-plus, compared to 56 per cent of poorer pupils. Grammar schools are inclusive, says Ofsted The disadvantaged students who do take the exam “are also less likely to pass it than their more advantaged peers of similar attainment”. Lead author Binwei Lu said: “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-plus, 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”. Opt-out system would have ‘moderate’ effect The research also tested whether an opt-out system – whereby all pupils would take the test unless they decided not to – would boost the proportion of poorer pupils in grammar schools. They found that introducing such a system “would increase the proportion of disadvantaged pupils at selective schools, but only moderately, from 7.8 per cent to 12 per cent”. The researchers “believe that test taking behaviour is not a major driver of the lack of disadvantaged students at selective schools, although revising selection rules to improve fairness remains important”. Tinkering with the selection process “cannot and will not make fundamental differences in opening up a high-quality education to all young people, regardless of background. “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,” co-author Xin Shao said. Lu added: “It is more about the much deeper social inequalities that shape a child’s chances long before they ever sit the test. “Given that, we think it is time to ask whether early-age selective schooling, a system that, by its very nature, tends to exclude disadvantaged pupils, can be made genuinely fair.” However, the study “has some limitations”, researchers noted. For example, it is based on council-level data, “and the authors acknowledge that findings may not generalise fully to other areas with different admissions practices, catchment patterns or levels of competition”.