To think that all private schools DO NOT cheat at exams?

[IsItJustUsOrNot]

Firstly, hello all. Secondly, name changed. Thirdly, I'm not looking for all the usual anti or pro private education arguments or comments that we all already know and love. So here goes:

Some pupils at our Prep were given 'help' to pass their Common Entrance exams this year, whether they wanted it or not. After the exam sessions had finished and the papers collected in, some pupils were called back later the same day to do them again, rewrite them to neaten them up, shown where extra marks could be picked up and so on, or a whole paper was gone through before an exam. We are being told that this is only to help the pupils, there is nothing bad about it, they are not public exams and all Preps do it. Some of us are not convinced however, see it as cheating and, worse, that the children have been forced to cheat. Who is right?

It makes me laugh when people say things like "all preps do it". Right, you'd be fine with letting the secondary school know about it, then?

Of course not all preps do it. It's outrageous. I would certainly want to report it to whichever authority is responsible (not quite sure how the CE exam works), though if your own child is involved, it's difficult.

Quite a few state primaries like to give their year 6 pupils extra "help" with Sats, which then causes problems for the secondaries, but that's another issue.

Head has to sign this and send it to destinations school/s and ISEB.

www.iseb.co.uk/getmedia/20e8402f-5884-4ad6-a903-914a6c01411c/Form-CE-Centre-Declaration.pdf.aspx

So they'd have sign to put their name to a lie.

Complaints would go to destination school and ISEB.

Of course not all preps do it. It's outrageous. I would certainly want to report it to whichever authority is responsible (not quite sure how the CE exam works), though if your own child is involved, it's difficult.

You just have to wonder what their motivation might be.

Preps (obviously) are trading in v young children, many of even the most famous preps make not even a pretense of selection, those that do are selecting at 4 or 7, it is logical and right that they all won't land at Westminster or Eton.

I just want to thank everyone so far for all the very interesting and helpful contributions. I think everyone is doing a brilliant job on the whole - keeping to the point, (though the couple of side issues not unwelcome), being clear about what is known, thought or has been heard, and keeping it friendly and reasonable - so thanks again all.

Paninotogo - Could you say any more about your experience and why it has led you to the conclusion that they all do (cheat) please?

Thank you for the link AnotherNewt

So they'd have to sign to put their name to a lie. This from AnotherNewt puts it into sharp focus together with reading the required ISEB/Senior schools declaration.

You just have to wonder what their motivation might be. This from TipTop raises an interesting question, one we have been considering since this happened and several posters above already touch on this.

The likely possibilities seem to be:

• To maintain the 100% record for pupils passing CEs and getting into senior schools.
• To maintain the good image of the school.

Neither of those objectives can be criticised, however achieving them using deceitful means including abusing the trust of pupils and some parents/staff by enforced cheating is in my mind quite wrong. It gives a short term gain, but risks actually damaging the reputation of the school and the future prospects of the pupils never mind teaching them that cheating is acceptable.

I would be interested to hear what, if any, action you think you would take? Complain to Governors, ISEB, senior schools, all of the above, any of the above, none of the above?

In your shoes, I'd take a closer look at the individual cases of children whose work was edited.

My first question would be, which level paper were they sitting and why.

Have you spoken with your head?

It is the HM who was mainly responsible and claiming among other things that it is done at all Preps, as described further in the OP.

Not all pupils were called back, but the pupils involved are just about the full range in terms of academic ability, sort of senior school and level of HM's patronage. I believe that all CE paper levels are involved, but can only make an informed guess about individual levels for each pupil. This is the same for marks gained second time around - from only one or 2 marks where the pupil would have passed very well anyway without the unwanted 'help', to quite a few marks which might have made the difference between pass and fail.

I imagine in the current economic climate a lot of prep schools are struggling, and therefore maintaining a good record of getting pupils through the CE exam is particularly important if they want to carry on attracting new pupils. So there are two groups being deceived here - the fee-paying secondary schools and prospective parents. I'd have thought it may well be illegal as well as unethical. What are you going to do, OP?

I suppose I'd be sharpening up my resume if I were you, out of both self-interest and ethics. Your head not only has poor judgement, but is wildly indiscreet.

A prep that can't get kids across the CE line is completely useless and not long for this world.

I have no idea if I'd report it if I were you. I'd be very worried about my next job.

and therefore maintaining a good record of getting pupils through the CE exam is particularly important

It's not the mark of a great prep to get all the students through the CE, it's the mark of a merely adequate one. I can't imagine that it would take an economic downturn to put those falling short of this very low mark out of business.

It means they are pitching pupils at the wrong level of secondary. This is a sign of significant weakness. And poor judgement from at least the head, and possibly others.

It's perfectly possible to have 100% pass CE. That is what happens at good schools which pay attention to the matching process.

Weaker schools attempting to ape it by cheating will end rather badly, as secondaries begin to mistrust them. The occasional pupil who does not meet the standard the secondary believed they were getting wouid just lead to a shrug of 'these things happen'. But once a school gets a reputation because several (even many) pupils are launched at schools which are a poor match, then the shrugging stops.

It gets considerably harder to get the offers in the first place, as the references simply won't carry the weight they should. And then no-one from the prep will be going to that school, which will be noticed by parents of prospective prep pupils. It's an insidious downward spiral which is hard to break, other than by new head. One with better judgement and some integrity

It strikes me that in some cases the cheating was actually totally unnecessary, involving pupils who would have passed anyway and pupils who did not even need to pass CEs for entry into their senior schools. Even more so in such cases it begs the question why. Is it possibly safety in numbers: that numerous pupils were involved to hide the few who really needed the 'help' to pass or get a higher grade, perhaps those with greater patronage from the HM and/or overstretched academically by the choice of senior schools? This is not always just the fault of pushy parents, particularly if the senior school has been promoted in the first place by the HM. The onus is surely on the HM of the Prep to ensure pupils and parents are guided to the best fit senior school for every pupil, and sit the correct levels of CE for those schools and for the pupils' abilities? Then there would be no need for cheating.

The onus is surely on the HM of the Prep to ensure pupils and parents are guided to the best fit senior school for every pupil, and sit the correct levels of CE for those schools and for the pupils' abilities? Then there would be no need for cheating.

Yes, you have just described normal practice with that.

I'd complain to ISEB as a starting point, also governors if you feel able to.

Another aspect of this has been for the pupils who had to go through formal assessment before CEs to be allowed legitimate extra time during their exams - those with dyslexia, for example - and for their parents who were expected to pay hundreds of pounds for these assessments. Yet extra time and even 'help' can just be given to almost anyone after the exam on an ad hoc basis on the judgement of the HM or other staff?

Yet extra time and even 'help' can just be given to almost anyone after the exam on an ad hoc basis on the judgement of the HM or other staff?

No it can't. That is also cheating. That does not happen, other than in places that I would describe as weak and dishonest.

The rules about extra time have tightened (you need absolute low scores on ed psych tests, not just significant discrepancy) though rules for use of computer have become more pragmatic , as 'accustomed use' is now a justification. Sounds as if a new SENCO who understands the rules and how to apply them is also needed.

Of course no reasonable person would want any pupil with a genuine SEN to be denied the help they need and deserve. These pupils were assessed in advance, allocated extra time and resources for during the exam and their parents had to pay handsomely for that. The problem is with the apparent cheating by the school, as described in the OP, and involving non-SEN pupils, (as well as some SEN pupils).

There was however a query about why one pupil was allocated extra time during exams, (not just the cheating time afterwards), with no apparent SEN. This is a pupil very openly with a great deal of patronage from the HM, although in the interests of fairness there might also be genuine but hidden reasons for the extra time initially given.

Looking again at the individual pupils who were called back, the group definitely includes pupils from families with less, little or no patronage from the HM. Some of their parents have a very poor relationship with him, with little or no mutual respect. It does make me wonder if they were included as they were seen as most likely to complain and disclose what went on if they found out about it. Of course if their own children were involved they probably wouldn't complain because they simply couldn't without potentially damaging their own children's futures. Thus the HM possibly believes that he has them over a proverbial barrel, and his favoured children, the reputation of the school and his own reputation are safe.

What a strange story. Does this school specialise in SENCO children? Do they weed out children who can't pass the 11+ or 13+? What percent of the children are sitting Level 1 exams?

Yes TipTop, strange but true, or at least that's how I and a fair few others see it. No, certainly not a specialist SEN school, and no obvious weeding out. Just CE at 13+ taken, not 11+. I don't know the percentages at Level One although plenty do all levels also including 2, 3 and scholarships.

some pupils were called back later the same day to do them again, rewrite them to neaten them up, shown where extra marks could be picked up and so on, or a whole paper was gone through before an exam

Unless the school is a boarding prep I would imagine that this level of cheating would be very difficult to arrange.

Sitting Common Entrance is like taking all your GCSE exams in 4 days. I've just looked at next year's exam timetable and there are 13 subjects (15 exams) set over 4 days. Day 4 has optional subjects (Latin, Greek etc.) but surely all pupils take the other subjects (11 exams) spread over 3 days? Day 1 has 4 hours of exams (4 different subjects plus 4 different subjects on day 3) - how do you persuade/organise 12/13 year old children to rewrite their exam scripts at the end of the day after 4 hours of exams and hide all this from the other year 8 pupils, teachers and parents when the school day finishes at 4pm?

Common Entrance exam scripts have to be sent off to the senior schools immediately (the same day) to be marked.

Our prep school parents would be furious if this sort of thing went on - only recently, one mother made a fuss because one group of year 4 pupils (9 year olds) were inadvertently allowed an extra 15 minutes for their end of year science exam and thus scored higher marks.

Finally, to pass Common Entrance, isn't the average or 'mean' percentage score for each pupil important rather than the individual scores for each exam paper? So, it's perfectly possible for a pupil to 'fail' some of their exams and still 'pass' Common Entrance if their average percentage score is 55% or 60% etc.?