Common Entrance - what does it cover and at what sort of level? Just curious :)

[rooksby]

Hello!

Independent schools not on the agenda for us or our DC but I am really interested in the common entrance exam.

I've seen a few threads on MN about helping DC prepare for this and it sounds to me like it's quite rigorous? Does it always involve MFL, is it one paper or several subject papers? I had a google but you can't beat explanations from those who are familiar with the system.

I also find the comments about Eton v Winchester for e.g., pretty fascinating. I assumed that if you had enough money and standing your child would definitely get a place but some stuff I've read on MN suggests it's not. I also thought that one of the things you were paying for was for your child to reach their maximum potential but some of the dimmocks on Made In Chelsea have me wondering...

NB I'm not interested in a bunfight about the rights and wrongs of it all.
Personally I would not choose private education for my DC (even if we could afford it :) ) but respect others choice to do so - I accept not everyone shares the same views as me and think that state education is pretty inadequate.

My main interest here is what the "average" child would know, versus what the child prepped for CE would need to know. I wish MFL were taught properly from 7 in our state schools but hey ho.

I get the impression a child prepared for CE would have a breadth of knowledge comparable to me as a school leaver...could be wrong though, one of my best friends went to a public school and he's not overburdened with general knowledge!

If you've managed to make head nor tail of this thank you :)

I'm curious too - I have a Year 3 boy, hoping for a decent state secondary, but thinking we might need to keep options open. Will be interested to hear replies.

At 13+ there are papers in English(x2), Maths(x2) plus a mental maths exam, Science, French, Spanish(possibly other mfls), Latin, History and Geography and RS - although not sure all are compulsory and others may be available - taken over the course of a week. Some subjects can be sat at different levels (ie. languages) and there are options to do projects on specific topics in lieu of certain exam questions and oral exams for MFL. The syllabus is set by ISEB and exams graded by the school being applied for according to the standard marking system (I believe these are externally verified ). Like any syllabus for an exam it can be taught and practiced specifically, especially frequently occurring themes.

There is also a Common Academic Scholarship level which is comparable to GCSE/A level and involves writing essays on much broader issues and discussing statements requiring a much more general knowledge of the subject with specific references and case studies relevantly applied.

Some schools may require an average of 80%+ in CE, others 50% to get a place depending on how selective they are.

Thank you! That does sound quite rigorous compared to what was expected of me at that age.

Surely part of the reason schools who admit via CE do so well at GCSE and A Level is because a lot of the groundwork has been done at junior school? Especially with languages, I started French in year 7 and German in year 9 - to have studied them at primary would have been such an advantage when it came to GCSE.

I also wonder if part of the reason people schooled in this way tend to do well later on is because their secondary education is not all taken up with "teaching to the test" - if they start with good levels in the CE subjects then there's more room to expand and have an actual proper knowledge base IYSWIM, as well as getting the A-level grades.

I'm hoping to provide a bit of broader knowledge for my DC, as I know they will be rats on the exam result wheel in whichever crapola state school they end up at, and even if they do "well" academically they will still not get the knowledge base and basic grounding in things from school.

My parents both went to grammar school in ye olden days, left after O levels and still knock me and my university educated friends into a cocked hat for general knowledge and depth in lots of areas, history, maths etc.

Yes a lots of ground work has been done most good preps have been preparing children for CE since year 4 MFL since at least yr 3 and latin since yr 4. My DS sat exams indentical in style to CE in all the subjects every term from yr 3.
Combine this with the fact that in top preps subjects would have been taught by specialist teachers from yr three and not just one lesson a week either. Most preps will have proper science labs where children do experiments, language labs, etc. so obviously a child from a prep school is better prepared. I'm also anxious state versus private ed. argument I'm just telling you how it works.
Well know names like Winchester and Eton are selective you don't get in because your father went there. Eton interviews and pre tests at yr 6 for admission into yr 9 and requires a child to pass CE it used to be 65% + on all papers. Winchester does the same thing, writes its own exam based on CE but harder you are expected to "pass" the exam.

An A grade at 13+ CE is equivalent to at least a C at GCSE so yes the pupils who have done CE are way ahead of their state educated colleagues- they have a head start and this is generally reflected in the GCSE league tables.

Here is a general synopsis with links to syllabuses for the various subjects.

CE covers, roughly, the NC Key Stage 3 curriculum.

CE goes well beyond the NC Key stage 3 curriculum.

The only subject that I am aware of exceeds the NC is French/MFL higher tier.

Science is certainly matched to the NC.

That's not to say the exam are as easy as SATs - but the content is broadly similar.

Can be found here www.iseb.co.uk/syllabus.htm

The history one is extraordinarily wide. CE can be taken at different levels in different subjects. So you might do Level 3 Latin (I think that is the harder) and Level 1 Greek. My understanding is that schools like Westminster or St Pauls expect at least 70%, possibly 75%, in each subject at Level 3 and for a candidate to offer at least 2 languages (ancient and modern, so normally Latin and French) at Level 3, along with the full range of RE, Science, Geography and History as well as maths and English.

Other less selective schools will be happy with level 1 in some subjects and lower marks.

My understanding is that this sort of mark at Level 3 is not that far off GCSE requirements which is part of the reason why these schools get such extra-ordinary GCSE results three years later.

Scholarship papers are also provided by ISEB but several of the more selective schools set their own papers. The Westminster Challenge maths paper is supposed to be seriously analytical, whilst the French is heading towards AS level.

It is a slog, and though it can be done, it is difficult to prepare for one of the more selective schools if the child is not already at an experienced Prep School from about Yr 6.

When I was teaching in a prep school, the vast majority of selective schools had a pass mark of 55% (their own marking, of course). The first division schools had passmarks of 65% - I prepared boys for Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse and they were also 65%. Selective schools expected the level 2 papers in French. Latin wasn't compulsory, but counted in the % if they did it, good or bad.

There are an awful lot of myths and assumptions about CE here. The real selection takes place at the pre-test (and via the guidance of the prep school head); very few students fail their CE. A school doesn't want a surprise place coming available in the June before entry.

Another myth is that all senior schools use the CEE. In my experience, it was about half of the schools on my radar screen. The others set their own exams, which were based on the ISEB/NC-KS3 programme of study and taken in that same week as the ISEB test (the first week in June, with results to the prep schools the following Wednesday, and to the students a day later).

I also agree with Rooksby that doing so much groundwork prior to entering the school leaves a lot of time to teach beyond. GSCE is then not the object but simply a hurdle to be overcome on the way to receiving a good education. The apparent aim for A level language students at my son's selective CE school is to achieve fluency, with a good A level grade presumably a by-product.

DS will do relatively few GCSEs/IGCSEs, fewer than his cousin who was pushed through 13 in her state school. (Perhaps to keep the school average up rather than her own?!) This means that he has dropped CE subjects at a point where where he would almost certainly have gained a good result, and does not have anything to show for his knowledge. This does not bother me as I like the idea of schools being about education rather than results.

In contrast my daughter is at an 11+ independent school where a large proportion come in from good state primaries. There is no real difference between the girls in terms of potential, or economically, indeed the state primary girls tend to live in leafier and thus more expensive areas, however DD had done an awful lot more science, maths, French and Latin. There was quite a split then between those struggling with the increased rigour and pace of homework in Yr 7 and those like DD who has been able to coast for a year or so. At her prep she was not considered particularly bright, and it has been interesting to see how a year or more of being one of the more knowledgeable in the class has changed that perception, and more importantly her perception of herself.

My sense is that there is less time to then teach beyond the syllabus and that this makes the schooling duller.

In ds' year group, 6 or so schools applied for at 13+ required CE but most had pre-tested in Year 6 or earlier in year 8. About 2/3 of the kids went to schools with their own entrance exams taken in preceding November - January and which then awarded places which were not conditional on CE results.

Level 3 Latin is basically equivalent to GCSE in terms of required grammatical/syntactical knowledge (though there's no literature component). Children who sit level 3 are able to go far beyond the GCSE syllabus at their senior schools because they've covered so much material already.

Amerryscot. I think 65% was the norm. However there is huge pressure for places at London day schools, and my understanding is that requirements have crept up steadily, and that my 70% minimum for each subject is accurate.

I also understand that schools are interested in potential and so some leeway can be given to pupils with less traditional backgrounds. One Colet Court parent told me that they are told that given the advantages the boys have had in terms of preparation, the expectation for them is 75%.

I dont know that much about Eton or Harrow, but know boys who have used both those schools as fall backs having failed to gain places at Westminster/St Pauls or Kings (and indeed 11+ schools like Latymer Upper). 65% at Level 3 is still pretty good for a 13 year old and I assume boarding schools are looking for other things, as well academics. Eton equally turned down a very very bright boy we know, who would have had no problem achieving the marks needed, perhaps because he was not seen as a good fit for the school.

The 70% is the target given for CE by the school after the child has got through the pre-test at 11. One of my daughter's friends who was not at a trad prep ended up failing CE for one of the London day schools astonishingly badly and in every subject, despite having gained a conditional place at pre-test stage, as he underestimated the standard required and found it hard to juggle the extra work with his normal secondary school requirements.

It is however an Independent sector and each school does its own thing.

I know a few people who went to "normal" independent schools and they weren't really any better off than the comp kids when we got to 6th form.

Just doing the preparation for CE would be an advantage whether you did well/took a place at a "top" school or not - I feel like I've got a bit of an insight now into why people want to send children to these schools.

Thanks for all the replies, off to start saving up for some camping holidays abroad so my DC can get some MFL exposure before high school!

I think the good thing about preparing a child for CE is that it takes away the obsession with literacy and numeracy found in state primaries. IME boys in particular like for example history DS's did four lessons a week from yr 5, science lessons old prep broken down into phys/chem and biology and RS which does not just cover standard religions but a degree of philosophy. The children still develop their literacy skills because both the history and RS CE papers require essay writing of quite a high standard.

My son does his CE this summer. He has had many years of lessons in his prep school from specialist teachers and does formal exams, twice a year at his prep, since year 3, to get all the students ready for external examinations in the future. The syllabus is set by the ISEB (Independent Schools Examination Board). He is studying all the subjects that were named above. He had mock, mock exams in November, then has mocks in March/April then the real things in the summer. We have been told by the senior school we have applied for that CE is the equivalent to a foundation level GCSE.

We have been told by the senior school we have applied for that CE is the equivalent to a foundation level GCSE.

Friends often tell me CE is equivalent to GCSE (they tend to omit the word foundation) , as if it is proof that children taking CE are far in advance of their non-CE peers (not that the poster above is suggesting this - I agree her senior school is giving sound information).

But have you actually seen many foundation stage GCSE papers? Without wishing to insult those of our children who work hard towards their foundation level GCSEs, and who achieve well in them, the academic content is relatively basic and definitely not beyond a reasonably well educated 13 year old in either sector..

Common Entrance is based on the National Curriculum. Many good heads are no longer comfortable with it and it is at least as likely to lead to "teaching to the test" as Key Stage one and two SATS.

Below is just one article, written by the training and education director of IAPS (and therefore not someone who is likely to go to town in criticizing CE as an education professional not employed by a similar organization).

I think Amerryscot is spot on in her comments and is obviously professionally experienced in this area.

www.attainmagazine.co.uk/politics/future-of-common-entrance

I did pick up on the selection taking place before CE thing but my brain hurts these days and didn't manage to comment!

"Teaching to the test" is the scourge isn't it? There doesn't seem to be much of a chance for DC to get a good general education for the sake of it, regardless of how "academic" they are or are not.

Common Entrance is not foundation level GCSE but more akin to higher tier. Most of the potential scholars in DS prep are working at A'level standard, the bright cohort are GCSE standard and the less able are achieving more than foundation GCSE by the time they reach common entrance. In fact I doubt many would pass CE if they were producing the equivalent of foundation maths GCSE!

It matters little exactly to which GCSE CE is equivalent, the point is that setting down rigorous early foundations by good specialist teaching in a wide range of subjects means that there is time in the later years, through GCSE and A level to ensure that children are educated rather than just machined through the exams.

Happygardening is right: CE avoids the literacy/numeracy obsession which must leave an awful lot of children bored senseless.

Common Entrance is not foundation level GCSE but more akin to higher tier. Most of the potential scholars in DS prep are working at A'level standard, the bright cohort are GCSE standard and the less able are achieving more than foundation GCSE by the time they reach common entrance. In fact I doubt many would pass CE if they were producing the equivalent of foundation maths GCSE

Are you referring to Dean Close Colleger? I am interested to know how many children you consider are working at A Level standard by Christmas of year 8 and very impressed to learn that even the least able are working at Foundation Level. Do you have a working knowledge of both curricula and detailed information on the attainment levels of all these children that means I might rely on such a statement?

I am not referring to Dean Close but CE. TBH I do not rate Dean Close academically. Having tried to get my son into two other preps from DC both schools said he was two years behind. He went from being one year ahead at an academic prep to now two years behind.