To think most of the people bemoaning grammar schools are hypocrites

[pleasemothermay1]

That's just it's really I don't mind people who have the courage of there conviction but I have no trux with champagne socialists

Like jc or Diane Abbott or Tristan hunt

Who's children all went or will be going to grammar or private

Even bloody James o Brian moaning about grammars when he rountinly says he wouldn't rule out private for his girls 😕

I know you're a mathematician noblegiraffe but you do need to read the whole article, and in context. CEM tests are inherently far fairer than the old tests and no-one, including CEM is denying that. You've also taken my point out of context: knowing the whole curriculum no longer confers the advantage it once did is what I said.

^I was thinking more of the pupils who can give it a shot, simply being helped by the school.

Who decides who those pupils are? Because teacher assessment is notoriously unreliable.

I've just read the whole article and came to a completely different conclusion- where does it say the tests have fairer outcomes?

Yes you're wrong Bert. You're generalizing again from an early article about Bucks. The new Y7 at our school has 6% from independents and 94% from state.

I did read the whole article, goodbye. I paid especial note to the bit that said:

So if the test was resistant to coaching we should by now be seeing substantial narrowing of results between children from different backgrounds. The fact that the evidence shows the reverse raises uncomfortable questions about why a test that consistently selects on the basis of prior opportunity and social background is still allowed.”

So the test shows more discrimination against children from different backgrounds than the last one. How is that better?

Perfectly prepared to be wrong. The article is too, then. Have you got anything more accurate for us to read?

They're fairer in the sense that tutoring no longer confers the advantage it once did, partly due to the point about the content. The next stage is to encourage far, far more kids whose parents have been frightened off to apply, knowing the tests don't require tutoring.

I'm off out again now Bert, in case I don't answer one of your further questions (I've probably answered it elsewhere anyhow - there must be a finite number of times you can say the same thing; me too!).

"I dont think there is any getting through to some posters sadly"

what are you trying to get through to some of us?

There are so many obstacles in the path of my child - even if I wanted to put him into grammar school it is very unlikely he would get in because it's an unfair situation. He just wouldn't make it through without the tutoring and even then he would be disadvantaged.

They're fairer in the sense that tutoring no longer confers the advantage it once did

But that's bog-all use if the test is racist. Don't go hailing a racist test as the solution to all our problems.

"How come in the past - pupils could do a few practise papers and pass, what changed?"

Grade inflation, and rampant 'nuclear escalation' in tutoring.

Eg: 5 children - all equally clever and enthusiastic about learning

little Maria is bright and enjoys school. She is in a class of 30 at a well run state primary. There are 2 children with ADHD in her class who with no specific support, and her teacher is fairly newly qualified. Maria doesn't get a lot of her teacher's time, but her mum reads with her every week and helps her with her homework. Her mothers friend has told her to enter Maria for the 11+ and her mother intends to do so and assumes she will do fine.

Ann is as clever as Maria and is at the same state school and in the same class. However, her mother sits down with her every day and does maths practice for 20 minutes, followed by 20 minutes of writing. She also goes to a Saturday 11+ small group session for 3 hours, where she does small group, 11+ focused learning.

Fred is as clever as Ann, but he goes to a private prep school where he is one of only 13 children in class. He gets a lot of time with his teacher, who is an experienced maths specialist. He will be sitting the 11+. His parents won't do any special preparation because they assume they don't need to as Fred is near the top of his private school class in primary.

Marcus is in the same class as Fred and is also on the top table. His mother is more anxious about the 11+. and as a teacher herself has been working with him for an hour every night on 11+ type questions for the last 8 weeks running up to the exam. He also attended an 11+ summer camp and does 11+ booster sessions organised by his prep school.

Orla is in the same class as Fred and Marcus. Also on the top table. She's done everything that Fred and Marcus have done. She has also got an 11+ tutor who she's been seeing weekly for the past 6 months. Her parents are paying £60 per session for the tutor whose name she won't tell anyone. The tutor has got a 100% success record in getting children into superselectives so Orla's mother has high hopes for her.

Get it?

There is massive grade inflation and rampant tutoring. 1 in 3 in London and Kent. In my peer group I'd say it's more like two thirds of all children are tutored at some point.

noble you're being remarkably selective. You're quoting the founder of the anti-grammar group and putting her words into the mouth of the test provided who says the thing to do is to continue adjusting the test in the light of continuing research to make it increasingly fair. Also, it's not like the Guardian is the biggest fan of grammars. That's part of the context.

Now I'm off out.

provider, not provided.

goodbye Did you miss the bit where the people providing the test are against grammars and don't want any more opened? Of course they're going to continue to try to make the test fairer because that's what they set out to do - grammars exist, so they're trying to make the entry exam a bit less shit. They're not going to throw their hands up in defeat because the grammar schools would still exist.

Grade inflation, and rampant 'nuclear escalation' in tutoring

ah so nothing at all to do with PS not helping in any way their potential candidates then

I dont see how hard it can be to understand this simple point.

what they have done is removed PS help, and then pitted state primary against private preps for places then slaughtered parents who step into the gap for tutoring.....when prep schools very much prep for the tests.

goodbye

you will find many posters who are anti grammar on here remarkably selective.

ironically

Of course I didn't miss what the CEM guy said. It's not a requirement of the job that he has to be in favour of a grammar system. Those responsible for grammars engaged CEM to make the tests fairer which is what's been done. And CEM are bound to react to all evidence which emerges from the tests, across all areas not just Bucks. Did you miss the bit where he said it's possible to make fairer tests in what's an extremely complex area with multiple overlapping causes for a lack of proper cross representation in the current grammars? It must be galling for the anti-grammar protesters that a vast swathe of the grammar establishment is passionately behind trying to remedy that. CEM is a part of that, but only a part. Incidentally, did it say anywhere what the proportion is in Bucks of applications : offers? Or how many FSM kids achieve L5s in their SATs as a proportion of the primary population? I don't know the answers, merely asking.

Did you miss the bit where he said it's possible to make fairer tests in what's an extremely complex area with multiple overlapping causes for a lack of proper cross representation in the current grammars?

But they thought they'd already done that and instead got a test that selected against FSM kids and ethnic minorities. Not a roaring success! But interesting that you call it 'fairer'.

"what they have done is removed PS help"

Why should primary schools offer specific 11+ focused classes?

My dc's school had extension groups for top sets in maths and literacy, as most primary schools do, and that's fine. But 11+ focused work? Why?

"It must be galling for the anti-grammar protesters that a vast swathe of the grammar establishment is passionately behind trying to remedy that"

Not really because the vast majority of people who are against grammar schools are against them because they simply don't agree with segregating all children into different institutions on the basis of a test done at 11, regardless of the scope of the test.

goodbye I dont know re bucks however I have seen an article somewhere saying something like " if you want your dc to go to Bucks grammars, then dont send them to bucks PS"

Umm Mini, why ? because if the child is capable and the parents want it - why not?

again this jump to - " 11+ focused classes".

I never envisage all work stopping for years and pupils boarding an 11+ train.

I just see guidance - help and knowledge.

Thats if you want to level the playing field ?

Intensive tutoring and 10/11 year olds, attending a selective Grammar and hot housing kids does not guarantee success and happiness in life. Yes, a good school is a factor but this is only one part of a very complex puzzle.

There are so many other factors including

Parental Involvement
Personality
Family Life/ Circumstances
Health
Peer Group

noblegiraffe yes; I have significant doubts about this group in Bucks. You seem to put a lot of faith in what they say with seemingly little knowledge of the background. I do know what I've seen of the tests first hand, what I know of CEM and the research and what I see happening at our own school. I'm always prepared to be proved wrong and adjust my ideas but certainly that's not warranted yet.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016

^^ Just posted this on the other thread.
June 2016 "https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016"

Both these surveys found that thousands of pupils who achieved well at primary school, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, were failing to reach their full potential after the age of 11. The reasons for this were:

poor transition arrangements with feeder primary schools that left many academically gifted pupils treading water in their first few years of secondary school, rather than building on the gains made at key stage 2
a culture of low expectations and a failure to nurture high ambition and scholastic excellence
few checks being made on whether the teaching of mixed ability groups was challenging the brightest children sufficiently
disproportionate effort being spent in many schools on getting pupils over the GCSE D/C borderline rather than supporting the most able to secure the top A/A* grades

^^ crap isnt it.