Phys.org reported on November 10, 2026, that significant hurdles involving information, self-assurance, and backing from schools appear to deter lower-income households from registering their children for admissions exams, even when the pupils possess the necessary academic ability.
A major new study published in the peer-reviewed journal British Journal of Sociology of Education reveals that high-achieving disadvantaged students are far less likely to take and pass entrance exams for selective schools.
Researchers from Durham University, UCL, Zhejiang University, and St Paul’s School analyzed population-level data from Kent, England, examining two distinct stages of the selection process. They looked at whether pupils chose to take the entrance test and whether they ultimately passed it. The findings show stark disparities before the testing process even begins.
Among students classed as more advantaged—those not eligible for free school meals (FSM)—67% were able to take a test. That figure dropped to just 40% for pupils who did receive FSM, according to the study data. Academic attainment alone does not explain the gap.
Out of all children achieving high scores on their Key Stage 2 SATs, 84% of those not on FSM sat the 11+, whereas only 56% of students receiving FSM did so.
When disadvantaged students do sit for the test, they also face lower odds of passing compared to similarly performing students from more privileged backgrounds.
Xin Shao, a co-author from the UCL Institute of Education and St Paul’s School, observed that these differences demonstrate how obstacles preventing entry into selective education take shape well ahead of the actual assessment and selection procedures.
Policy reformers have long debated whether procedural changes could level the playing field. To test this, researchers conducted a simulation to see if the representation of disadvantaged students at grammar schools would increase if all students automatically took the 11+ test.
Replacing the current opt-in framework with an automatic opt-out mechanism would lead to a modest rise in the share of disadvantaged students attending selective institutions, their analysis indicated.
The figure would rise from 7.8% to 12%. Additional proposals like giving disadvantaged pupils extra marks would likewise deliver only a small boost.
Lead author Binwei Lu of Zhejiang University and The Evidence Center for Education at Durham University explained that the gap between groups becomes more evident at higher levels of national test performance. Lu remarked that attributing the reduced pass rate of FSM students on selective exams purely to lower academic achievement represents an overly simplistic view.
The research concludes that tinkering with the selection process cannot make fundamental differences in opening up high-quality education to all young people. Instead, the authors’ findings call into question the fairness of selective schooling systems as a whole.
“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 Shao of the UCL Institute of Education and St Paul's School said.
Lu added that the issue concerns deeper social inequalities shaping a child’s chances long before they ever take the test. The authors suggest it is time to ask whether early-age selective schooling, which inherently tends to exclude disadvantaged pupils, can be made genuinely fair.
The study relies on local authority-level data from Kent. The authors acknowledge that findings may not generalize fully to other areas with different admissions practices or catchment patterns, calling for further research across other selective areas in England and international comparisons.
