There are new forms of eleven plus testing being developed.
In the past tests of intelligence suggested a normal distribution of intelligence
in the general population. This suggested a few high scores, a few low scores
and most of the scores clustered around the average or `mean’.
The argument at the basis of the normal curve of intelligence
is that because factors like height and weight follow a normal curve of
distribution then so should ability follow a similar curve. Does a normal
distribution of shoe size also count. Could it be that tests of ability are
designed to produce a normal curve of distribution? Could even the new eleven
plus tests be manipulated in such a way that a normal curve of distribution is
reached to the satisfaction of the test builders?
Some of the new style eleven plus tests look at aspects of
verbal and non-verbal ability, comprehension and numerical reasoning. If the
provenance, however, of the new eleven plus tests was tested against the old
style tests then is it likely that the veracity of new tests is also flawed?
Wiseman of Manchester University back in 1962 maintained,
however, that a selector did not need to be concerned with any hypothetical
ability. He maintained that as long as the eleven plus test selected children
who were able to benefit from a grammar school education then the test was
worth using.
If the eleven plus tests are trying to test the potential of
children only at the top end of the ability scales – then do test authors need
to consider the ability of children at the lower end?
There was a theory that was floated at odd times that it may
be easier on the emotions of eleven plus parents and children if a rectangular system
of selection was adopted. All those children who fitted into the box could
pass. If you were not in the box you could not pass! This, in theory, should cut
down on the number of children in the borderline zone.
Was this the origin of the phrase: `thinking outside the box’?
Do eleven plus parents, however, interpret this as: `thinking inside the box’?
