London Consortium Independent Girls' Schools scrapping 11+

I know what you mean, NW, it does seem like more VR and nVR. My son had to do that on top of English and maths for his 11+ but it was so great last year with my dd that we didn't bother with any of that nonsense about having to know the various meanings of the word sage...

The English and maths is all part of basic state school stuff anyway, we just needed to do some practice comprehensions. This test seems (though I don't understand the nuances of CEM vs the other brands etc) to be similar to the grammars.

I have a second daughter who'll be doing this stuff.

There is a website up now for the new consortium test: london11plus.co.uk

I am disappointed that it is not an interactive, on-computer (adaptable) test (as used by several leading schools for entrance and other purposes), but rather very, very similar to grammar school tests and with the same pitfalls, including it becoming a speed competition more than about ability. Creative use of computer interface to make it fun (less scary) and more like a game, and more unpredictable for tutors and parents? Not at all!

My earlier optimism has therefore now faded - I DON'T think this will reduce the tutoring much, but simply redirect the effort towards VR and NVR, with kids being put under pressure to "learn" how to recognise and do endless different types of such questions.

Mental health impact??! I honestly think that there is a high risk that this will have a negative rather than a neutral or positive impact on the children - and parents! - now that all the children must learn to do NVR and VR, and the poor kids might also be "drilled" to achieve speed.

Thankfully I don't have more kids to put through this stress-fest.

Their excuse (in the FAQ section) for not making it computer-based is that they don't have enough computers. Come on! Either solve this practical problem or take comfort in the difficulty/futility in cheating on a truly adaptable test with a bank of many (e.g. 300?) all-new questions at different levels of difficulty of which each child e.g. does 60, and invite people in 2, 3 or 4 batches on a single day. If you actually care, invest!

At least when DC were being tutored in Maths and English in preparation; they were learning Maths and English which was potentially useful to them going forward. There isn't much use for the little NVR visual puzzles and VR codes.

Tuckerella, I agree. DD is a bright dyslexic. Sufficiently bright to take five A levels at Westminster School. Yet she is awful at timed aptitude tests: CAT, Tiffin 11+, UKCAT. Rotten scores on all.

Maths and English tests enabled schools to see how good her maths were, and satisfy themselves that she could cope with the English. Extra time on VR/nonVR for a 10 year old with slow processing speeds means longer having to concentrate very hard. More stress not less.

One reason for paying for private was that with her CAT scores and her assumed (very average - based on top 2% for some things and bottom 2% for others!) IQ there was a real risk she might get lost in the middle. As it is, and with the right support, she has done much better than many/most at London Grammars.

Grammar schools are moving away from just VR/nonVR as they are aware that it gives a real bias towards those who have practiced intensively. It seems odd that Independent schools are now looking to encourage the sort of tutoring that blights childhoods and takes away from their ability to think creatively.

Yes, I did.

The Telegraph says: "Ms Elphinstone, who has been headmistress at the £18,000-a-year school for five years, said that the verbal reasoning section of the old exam is the only part they want to retain."

Also CATs basically have components of VR, NVR and NR in them, code-breaking etc. So it's barely a departure from what is already in place, just a more polarising version of it.

Have you read the letter?
They are doing a CAT test not NVR or VR

Our good friend is both a teacher and govenor on a couple of these school boards. They are absolutely disgusted about the change, feeling that the original system was more of a social "leveller" because at least English and Maths are taught in all schools, regardless of whether they are state or private, whereas state schools do not prepare or teach VR or NVR or NR etc... so what this is in effect doing is:

1. creating chaos for the next 3 years meaning able and anxious kids will be unprepared for unfamiliar formats and especially nervous
2. people who tutor will continue to do so, just changing tack slightly
3. those who cannot tutor will still not be able to, and will be the least equipped to access the right kind of sample papers
4. penalizing the least advantaged

Our friend says it is merely a sneaky PR stunt to look as if they are addressing mental health issues (they were warned they might lose their charitable status) and that there is absolutely no way that these schools will not be testing for mathematical ability and literacy.

I am amazed at how taken in by this ploy everyone is.

Yes, Notcontent, writing skill would not be directly observed and rewarded, but an articulate, creative and thoughtful candidate with a wide vocabulary should still have a good opportunity to shine in VR, interview and perhaps also via the school reference or the year 5 report (if requested).

NWgirls - the sort of test you describe will favour children who are good at computer games, patterns, etc. but not someone who, for example, might be really good at creative writing.

Well, that will favour the posh and confident won't it!

Yes, AlexanderH, I also hope they will be doing adaptive/interactive tests on computers, rather than just filling in answers on a piece of paper to be “read” automatically:

• Probably feels less stressful for today’s digital natives (Minecraft-addicts)
• The time taken to answer particular questions can be taken into account in the scoring, if desirable / relevant
• Limits test duration (avoiding many too easy/difficult questions) so that 60 minutes is plenty to get robust results
• Reduces the risk of transcription errors (ticking in the wrong place on the answer sheet when knew the right answer)
• Test/question formats may perhaps, over time, evolve to become more effective (rich graphics, sound, dynamic sequences etc) and/or feel more like a fun game

The schools would need to have quite a lot of computers, though, at least if everybody takes the test at exactly the same time. (Or two or more test start times).

The best kind of tests (like the ones ds's previous school did) are intereactive so if a child gets a series of tasks correct they move onto harder ones whereas if they get them wrong they are given easier ones. The final score is derived from this.

QG: Making marking easier may well be the reason but it doesn't change the fact that this sort of change is for the better.

NotContent: I know a little bit about CAT tests and I don't think it is nearly as harrowing for a child as an English & Maths test which requires a lot of preparation, exam technique, timing etc. IMO.

Is it too cynical to suggest that they're doing this because of the increasing numbers applying for places at these schools and want tests that can be computer marked to save resources? They're just putting some PR spin on it. Everyone will just prep for the new tests which will be less beneficial that the previous maths and English prep as pp have pointed out.

The three schools in the Consortium that I know already interview all the candidates anyway as part of the selection process so this is not really a change.

I think this is just replacing one thing with another and I am not sure it's that positive.

I don't know anything about CAT tests but I do know that there are lots of clever, academic people who are not particularly good at verbal and non-verbal reasoning, particularly when having to do it quickly.

My dd has just started year 7 at one of these schools and when I first read about the changes, my immediate thought was that it was a pity they had not done so earlier, to spare my state primary DD the hell that was the 11+ preparation. But when I realised it was just being replaced with something more abstract, I was thankful that dd did the old format.

NWgirls I wholeheartedly agree that speed is a key success in the test. I have equal ability twins yet one was paranoid about speed and rushed his answers sadly. He's not natrually as fast as his brother and this rush panic resulted in a narrow miss.

Will it be one CAT & one verbale reasoning test for each of the two consortiums? i.e. if you are applying to schools on both consortiums will you end up doing 2 CAT's and 2 verbal reasoning tests. Does anyone know?

THe school Ds previously went to used INCAS tests for entry (they are similar to CAT & done by the same people who do Midyis)

He sailed through them gaining a very high score despite having specific learning difficulties & a very low speed of information processing score.

Paperclip:

You’re welcome. I had the same reaction when I found the letter, after first having been confused by the newspapers.

And the 11+ test is obviously not “scrapped” by this (there is still an important and stressful test!) but it is being changed a lot.

Thanks for the link NWgirls, that answers a lot of my questions.

Using a CATS type system makes considerable more sense than moving to verbal reasoning.

Heads already know pretty much what level CATS are likely to put a pupil in the running for particular schools, so this could lead to a system with fewer surprises.

I wonder if they will set a lowish "pass mark" then make final decisions by interview. Then presumably there will be much less motivation to tutor endlessly to get the DC to top positions, if a large number are going to be interviewed.

Make sure to read the letter from the 12 heads rather than just the press coverage, as some important (positive!) aspects are not covered well by the newspapers - link:
www.fhs-sw1.org.uk/userfiles/francishollandmvc/Documents/Press/Consortium%20Statement%2010%2010%202017.pdf

I see that the new test is CAT rather than simply VR. I am not an expert, but is not a CAT test likely to be reasonably robust gauge of underlying ability and potential future attainment - and already in use, in some form, as a pre-test, by several leading secondary schools?

The letter hints that the consortium is hoping to attract co-ed and boys schools as members in the future, which I really welcome, as one of the major "stress-drivers" for kids (and parents!) is having to prepare for and sit a handful of different tests, with different formats, in different locations, on different days, each being stressful and requiring time off for both children and adults. The consortium is already a life-saver in easing applications to several schools for girls (only), and broadening this to other schools would be brilliant.

The change might help limit (but will far from stop) tutoring - if the CATs are accepted by most parents as mostly measuring real underlying ability i.e. that extra preparation has very little impact on the score. It might also help even out the playing field between children from state primaries vs. private preps. (And it could also be that the fastest-spinning hamster wheels - also called academic preps - will have less appeal to parents of moderately academic kids if these schools are seen as less effective preparation for a CAT test than they currently are for the tests that mostly measure current attainment.

I really hope the test actually will measure ability as opposed to speed, though. My impression is that current (superselective) grammar tests are mostly speed tests where endless practice is essential to get quick enough to be able to get through to the end of the test within the time constraint - not to mention to recognise question types and learn how to crack them. This is a pitfall to avoid when designing the test.

Interviews are already being used by all these schools. I have nothing against these being given more weight, as seems to be an implication.

So to me this sounds like it could be a great development - if they get the test design right and especially if they also manage to expand the consortium membership base.

I think making tests as tutor proof as possible is a good idea.

I don't think verbal reasoning only is they way to go as

a) non-verbal reasoning has a significantly better reputation as best ability predictor, and
b) what it will do is weed out children with dyslexia

And of course, pupils will still be prepped, including by tutoring, because even if going for consortium schools parents may well also be applying to others.

I wonder if the other Independent schools will follow suit? DDs friend is trying for some of the Consortium schools, but also Highgate, so I can't see her tutoring ending as she will need it for that.

I am also confused as to how this will end tutoring, as surely parents will now tutor for the VR? I wonder how they will tutor for interviews, I am sure there is a way.

I think I read that part of the reasoning was to help poorer students who can't afford tutoring. Will these schools give more bursaries out now I wonder? If you can't afford tutoring it is unlikely that you will be able to afford the school fees.