A grammar school has announced changes to its 11-plus test in an effort to counter what it calls the “insidious rise” of the tutoring industry. The new test will focus on curriculum English and maths, remove elements such as verbal reasoning, and be taken earlier in the summer. The intention, according to the headteacher of Reading School, is to protect children, reduce pressure, and boost social mobility.
We welcome seeing school leaders openly acknowledging the problems created by high-stakes selection. Concerns about excessive tutoring, parental anxiety and children spending their final years of primary school preparing for a single exam are widely shared. But while these changes are well-meaning, they raise a deeper question: can reforming the test really fix the unfairness that is built into selection itself?
The myth of the “tutor-proof” test
At the heart of these reforms is the idea that switching to curriculum-based English and maths will reduce the advantage enjoyed by families who can afford private tuition. This is deeply problematic. English and maths are precisely the subjects where advantage outside school matters most. They are shaped not only by classroom teaching, but by home environment, parental confidence, access to books, enrichment activities, and also from proficiency that comes from paying for extra curricular academic coaching. If these subjects could be mastered without teaching or support, schools themselves would not exist.
Removing verbal or non-verbal reasoning does not eliminate tutoring. It simply changes the type of tutoring that pays off.
As long as access to sought-after schools depends on outperforming others in a competitive test, families with more time, information and resources will find ways to prepare. The tuition arms race does not disappear; it just changes to suit a different test.
Moving the test earlier doesn’t lower the stakes
Another major change is the decision to move the exam from the autumn term to the summer term — meaning children will now sit the 11-plus at nine or ten years old.
The stated aim is to spare children a “miserable summer” of preparation. But this risks simply bringing forward tuition, and overlooks something crucial: emotional maturity matters just as much as academic ability.
At nine or ten, many children are still developing their confidence, resilience and sense of self. Subjecting them to a pass-or-fail judgement gives them a heavy emotional burden, particularly when results are framed as a measure of intelligence or worth.
Lowering the age does not remove the pressure of selection. It simply places that pressure on children who are even less equipped to process it.
Curiosity and creativity can’t be ranked on demand
The new test is described as being designed for the “curious child”, aiming to assess creativity and knowledge learned in state schools. These are admirable qualities. But they are also uneven, context-dependent, and often late-developing. Curiosity does not bloom on a schedule, and creativity is not something that reliably reveals itself in timed, competitive assessments.
There is an inherent contradiction in all this because selection demands ranking and exclusion, while curiosity and love of learning flourish best in environments free from fear of failure.
If curiosity is truly the goal, competitive early selection is a strange mechanism for rewarding it.
When ‘fairness’ requires ever more rules
Alongside test changes, the school has also proposed prioritising pupils from state primary schools, a move that has provoked backlash from independent school parents.
This reaction tells its own story. The introduction of additional criteria is an attempt to correct for the well known unfairness of selection. But it also creates new resentments, and new debates about who “deserves” access. Instead of one simple test, we end up with a growing web of exceptions and adjustments.
When an admissions system requires ever more complex rules to feel fair, it is worth asking whether the problem lies not in the rules but in the system itself.
A fair education system should not depend on the ingenuity of individual headteachers or on constant tweaks to an inherently unequal process.
The real question is not how to perfect selection, but why we continue to rely on it at all.
