Is it too early to start a 2016 girls 11+ W/SW London thread?

How would you bring in pre-tests for an 11+ entry?

More exams in the same year? Or sitting even younger?

Most schools which pre-test are 13+ entry, who have introduced an extra exam at 11+. This making the 11+ year the key one for even more schools.

yes but she doesn't give any bloody solutions - just apply to 3! However when the goalposts keep shifting it is impossible for many to know which 3.

i think bringing in pre-tests is the answer. a first round screening rather than pushing kids through the stress of full on exam days.

and VR and non VR can't be coached? Is she serious? This is the exact reason why Tiffin has moved away from it to maths & english. Because too many were coming in with perfect VR and non VR scores and their ability esp in English just didn't match.

A pertinent article on the 11 plus madness from the head of WHS:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11933970/The-horror-of-11-plus-exam-season-has-to-change.html

Oxbridge offers are a good measure of success since at the best schools they tend to remain fairly constant over a long period of time. For example the Sutton Trust reported in 2008 that the average annual Oxbridge offer rate at Westminster in a 5 year period between 2002-6 was around 50%-very similar to what it was last year.

As regards average GCSE results, by coincidence if you look at the 2015 GCSE results (see Sunday Times etc) the only two girls schools in the country with better GCSEs than Westminster's were..SPGS and Wycombe Abbey. Clearly the Westminster girls from other schools are dragging the average down!

If you think Oxbridge offers are a good measure of success. ...

I have no doubt that some girls may get better grades by staying at their original schools, but will they be better prepared for University by remaining in a known and single sex environment.

Horses for courses. Like at 11+. It's about fit rather than league tables, and the hope is that this elaborate process that others on the thread are going through helps ensure that candidates end up in the place that suits them best.

One curious statistic is that Westminster boys tend to have better average GCSE results than the incoming girls. Some girls are clearly very bright, but there again so are some of the boys.

I guess in order to resolve the argument we would need to find out what percentage of boys and girls respectively get into Oxbridge..

Needmoresleep I agree Westminster sixth form is fab and goes beyond the syllabus. However the issue is whether the results the girls achieve are much or indeed any better than they would have been had they remained at their old schools. I believe candidates for the Westminster sixth form sit an exam in the four subjects which they are likely to do for A level and have an interview; in other words its a highly competitive process and I stand by my assertion that those who get in are some of the brightest girls in the country even if they are not all from SPGS or Wycombe Abbey (although I have known quite a few who were!).

I'm with Lark on this one. Westminster sixth form is fab for both boys and girls. Kids are encouraged to engage in all sorts of ways beyond the classroom, providing great preparation for University.

And no evidence that selection is simply poaching the best from SPGS and Wycombe. Girls come from a wide range of schools and some will have had quite a rocky time at 11+. The advantage is that selection at 16 is easier. Some kids start to shine whilst others fade during the GCSE years. So if you don't get what you want at 11 or find the school is not stretching enough there is always the chance to move at 16.

And Westminster work very hard to integrate the girls. They are there to provide a co-ed environment not just to improve the results

LarkDescending- Westminster girls -assuming you are one-do provide the school with a big advantage results wise as they are often some of the brightest girls from schools like SPGS/CLGS (or maybe Wycombe Abbey if they were boarding). They are therefore highly motivated and the sort who find lessons exciting and have the advantage of only doing A levels ie subjects they have actively chosen rather than GCSEs where most people dislike at least half their subjects i.e. Westminster girls don't need motivating by their teachers and unlike the boys they don't indulge in illegal substances etc. They would frankly do well anywhere and -while I think that W is a brilliant school in many ways-I doubt that the school makes a great difference for girls as a) they are there for less than 2 years and b) they were Oxbridge material (in some cases I know Oxbridge dead certs) when they arrived at the school.

A bit off-piste for the thread, but can't help responding on value added. I went to Westminster (6th form, 1980s) and the quality and depth of teaching was really remarkable (though I doubt my teachers had a teaching qualification between them). They were passionate about their subjects and took us above and beyond the syllabus in every possible direction with a view to stretching pupils to the limit.

I had happily coasted at my previous (boarding) school, but W was a whole new world of academic intensity and in my view richly deserved due credit for the very good results its pupils achieved, notwithstanding the huge advantage it had in being able to refresh the intake with a load of keen girls at 16+. It was a culture of perfection - coasting was not an option, and if you looked too comfortable they just ramped up the stretch factor. Also, it was cool to be clever, which counts for a lot in ensuring teenagers don't hide their light under a bushel.

MissGintyMarlow -DH and I both attended top London private schools and while it is true that the teachers were often well qualified Oxbridge graduates neither of us were that inspired by the teaching. It is easier to teach in the private sector since the kids are exclusively MC and more importantly as you don't need any teacher training qualification. More people therefore tend to fall into teaching in the private sector by default after uni who don't have any real love for the job. I also think the argument that private schools are more enriching is a bit overdone. It is true that these days private schools seem to compete to see who can provide the largest number of clubs and expensive overseas trips but in London at least any activity done at school can normally be done to a higher standard outside (hence those at school who were really good at music would go on the weekends to the top music colleges etc).

Well, having been both to a comp and to one of the schools mentioned here, I'd say there is a HUGE amount of added value in certain schools. I'd probably have got the same grades at the comp (though I couldn't have studied all the subjects I would have liked), but the other school was a far more enriching experience in many ways. The teachers were in a different league. I also (we moved a lot) attended another very academic and selective school, but it wasn't nearly as good (though still better than the comp) - the top London schools can attract the very best and most inspiring teachers.

I agree with you jeanne16 i.e. I don't actually think schools-whether independent or state- add much value and there is plenty of research to suggest that genes and parental involvement play a larger part than the actual school in academic achievement. If the kids at Westminster/SPS/SPGS etc are the brightest private pupils at 11 or 13 is it surprising that they are the brightest at 18 provided they work as hard as everyone else (and I think Westminster still even has school on Saturdays)? What is more difficult is to persuade people that even if their DC attended a state school they would probably get the same grades .Re the London state schools it will be particularly interesting to see what happens in 7 years with Holland Park where the lure of the new building, coupled with changes to the admission criteria (now purely distance from the school), mean that the top band -over a third of the entry-now seems to comprise almost entirely MC children quite a few of sat the 11 plus and got offered places at the likes of LU.

Neuroticnicky may well be right but isn't that just another example of how little value any of these schools actually add. Any school that can cherry pick all the top pupils can easily get top grades out of them. It doesn't mean the teachers are any better.

Always reminds me of a friend's son who was at SPS. He got an A* in iGCSE maths, as did his entire year group, but they would not allow him to do A level maths as he did not get 100% for his GCSE exam. If you only allow the absolute best to do a subject, then teachers aren't really needed. The pupils could teach themselves from the textbook.

Btw I have put 2 DCs through these SW Independent schools so I am not having a pop at private schools. I just wonder sometimes....

I agree with alwaysfrank that the problem with looking at today's LU stats is that they reflect the pupils joining 7 years ago plus a few new sixth formers. I know some very bright children who have gone there recently and ,although I'm not a great fan of the LU site myself, I think that the combination of location and co-ed will pay dividends in the long term and would expect recent LU intakes to start to close the gap with the likes of Westminster.

Yes Alwaysfrank, location of LU does make it popular. Many of my North London friends' DC sat for it.

jeanne16, I think LU has been the ecole du jour for a long time. Certainly since my eldest went through the 11+ malarky and I became aware of SW London secondaries. I totally agree: comments like the Tatler one totally put me off a place!

To answer Jeanne's query about why LU is so popular, I think it is geography! It is really easily accessible by children from a huge radius, unlike say LEH, Hampton or KGS which are too far away to appeal to those in central or north London. Academically it feels more accessible than the likes of SPGS, St Paul's, Westminster. I would say it is in the Goldilocks zone of London day schools!

I am an LU parent with a child towards the top end of the school, and actually my dc's year is quite mixed academically. I mean they are obviously all reasonably bright but not all highly academic by any means. My dc was probably only just about in the top third of the class in primary school, and whilst he's never been near the top, he's also not at the bottom of the year group either.

Knowing the academic level of a few other children who went there that intake, I don't believe for a minute that they just offered to the top x number from the exam. I think back then, under the previous head, that the criteria were probably broader (because even then the numbers applying were insane) - they must have also been seeking a certain something else. This also might explain why, in neuroticnicky's eyes they are appearing to underperform in terms of results. I just don't think the intake historically is at all comparable with that of Westminster - it will be interesting to see if the more recent intakes begin to close the gap.

Thanks, everyone, for your responses (we also took the DIY route). As orca321 said, "it IS possible to choose NOT to join the arms race" and, like choselatymer, we found it very rewarding (and somewhat fun) to prepare our DD. We went in this direction because we wanted DD to fit in academically wherever she ended up and worried that excessive preparation would have harmed her in the long-run (ie struggling to keep up and being unhappy).

From what I have seen, I think the stress experienced by DC comes as much (perhaps even mostly) from their parents as from classmates, teachers, etc. For us, perhaps what helped in terms of managing our (and DD's) stress levels was that we never thought the 11+ would be destiny-defining for DD (basically, we embraced Crazy2016's view that DC may develop at different rates) and, being foreigners, we were to an extent insulated (due to our ignorance) from the frenzy surrounding the 11+.

I am aware that the next couple of weeks will feel like an eternity but please remember - as mentioned by posters up the thread - that most DC (and their parents) end up liking their chosen secondary schools, even those that were considered back-ups at first.

I am really puzzled as to why LU is suddenly so sought after. It seems to have been since Tatler called it 'the coolest school in London'. Personally that put me off!

I think they do show a lot of resilience- and DD had enjoyed the rest of the day out of school with the exams and interviews post exams.
She has also said that she is going to open all the letters, all on the last day where we get a letter, so that she can see them all at the same time. I am under strict instructions not to look at one of the responses that comes by email.
I think giving them as much control as possible helps. i find it has not been stressful with her - perhaps because it is my 3rd time

Going to Oxbridge is no longer the be-all-and-end-all though (if it ever was)! Surely it depends on the course? LU is not an exam factory and, once in, it actually has a surprisingly open and non-competitive vibe about it. Pupils range from some serious academics to those who see themselves as a bit "too cool for school"😆 but in general, pupils don't define themselves by their academic results. They are just as likely to head off to drama / art schools or whatever as to the so called "top unis" and this is equally valued. If Oxbridge is your thing though, there's no reason not to get there. U.S. Unis are also increasingly popular.

Parents and children do get upset when they don't get into LU but-while all seem to like the school once there- given the selective intake there is no evidence to suggest that LU outperforms the other West London private schools and IMO bright girls can do just as well at some of the smaller schools such as St James or FHNW1. Indeed LU pupils are still some way behind the likes of Westminster and SPGS in terms of gaining entry to top unis. For example both Latymer and Westminster have around 180 pupils in the sixth form and last year I think Latymer got 21 Oxbridge places whereas Westminster got 97-nearly 5 times as many.

gladtobedone and choselatymer, I also went for the DIY route with DD although I did have moments of terrible self-doubt and wondered if I'd let her down by tutoring her myself (in hindsight, this was more about me panicking, having been infected by the West London 11+ hysteria than anything else). The decision was largely financial and I didn't want her to go into her exams totally unprepared. Like another poster has said, there were things that she just wouldn't have been taught in Maths by the time of the exams so we spent much more time on Maths than English. We started with an hour or two of Maths once a week from Easter of Y5 then added in English from the start of Y6 as she is a very strong writer but I felt she needed some techniques for the comprehension. She then did quite a few practise papers from the October half-term of Y6 onwards. She got offers from LU and NHEHS and an interview at SPGS although no offer from them in the end (we only applied to these 3), but I felt confident that wherever she ended up, she would cope just fine as she hadn't been over-intensively tutored for the exams. Interestingly, in her form at LU, it seems to be the children who came up from the prep who sometimes struggle with the work.