Grammar school tests to be made 'tutor-proof'

[breadandbutterfly]

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/9653189/Grammar-school-tests-to-be-made-tutor-proof.html

Russian - despite what you might think, I do not think that there is a direct correlation between a school's ranking and how selective it is.

If the posts about Tiffins and Co are true then one needs to score 95% to be sure of a place. My DC scored lower than that and yet he secured a place at a school that is higher ranked than the more selective schools mentioned above.

In anycase, I only mentioned rankings in the first place in order to make the point that a lowly ranked selective probably isn't that selective so of course a bright but untutored kid is going to pass. So the fact that this parent's DC got a place without tutoring does not prove that bright kids don't need tutoring to pass.

But BS, some of the parents mentioning that their kids were not tutored are talking about higher ranked schools than Tiffins.

But I agree that it doesn't prove that bright kids don't need tutoring to get into Tiffins though. All it can ever be is an anecdotal refutation to the claims some people make that the only way to get into any grammar school is to tutor - claims which put bright kids and their families off applying.

The Tiffin tutoring seems to be very specific pavlovian response, muscle memory style tutoring (this is how you tick really really quickly) rather than anything academic. Which also seems a wasted opportunity - if you have the money, and a kid willing to learn, then let them learn some more advanced maths or start a new mfl or something like that, rather than how to tick really really fast.

I've never quite understood the obsession about the rankings of selective schools- surely there must be barely a gnat's crotchet between them? 99% A-C vs 100% A-C, where in both cases in reality a C is practically unheard of?

Russian - a few days ago a MNetter was going on about how she wasn't tutoring her DD. She later went on about how her DD had a sickie from school and was curled up with a brain teaser puzzle book.

In the Real World I have a friend whose DD got into a super selective with no tutoring. Her primary school was mentioned in the Sunday Times education supplement as an example of a highly academic primary that was a feeder to several super selectives.

If you were to ask these people they would tell you that there DCs got in without any help and that tutors aren't necessary. Obviously doing brain teasers for fun isn't tutoring and having your DC going to a primary with a national reputation for academic excellence wasn't a contributing factor to her DC passing.

Funny you should say that Russian because DD4 does now have a 'tutor' (the elder sibs' first teacher, now retired), who is teaching her french and more advanced maths :)

Why all the argument? Surely the commonsense view is that a bright child will get into most selective schools after some familiarisation, ie marginal tutoring. A child who is being tested in maths/English may need more subject-specific tutoring if their primary school has not covered all the curricuum before the exam - even the brightest child can't be expected to say calculate a perimeter if they've never learnt what a perimeter is.

Don't think anyone would argue with this. (Until schools introduce tests that only cover year 5 curriculum if such a thing is possible - know it is suggested but as schools teach in different orders a year 5 curriculum may not be standard.)

Surely everyone agrees that tutoring for years at hours per night is miserable for the child and not really worth it - even if they then get in, surely this is a sacrifice too far? Equally, surely noone believes that a child doing a vr or nvr 11+ should not be allowed to view a sample paper or a few to get an idea of what they will be expected to do?

I think two extremes are being peddled here - the reality is most people - tiffins thread aside =- are in the middle.

seeker You are so right, part of the culture surrounding the admissions process in this part of London is to foster the perception that the gnat's crochet is yawning chasm, when in reality we are served by a lot of very good schools. Whether they are 9th in the country or 75th or 200th, any one of them will enable your child to fulfil their potential and they do. It also causes parents to turn their noses up at outstanding comprehensives which in reality enable the pupils in the top sets to achieve as highly as the Grammar Schools, but just the sniff of a C in the vicinity of a school can induce anxiety.

It makes the schools completely focused on results too, SPGS's response to the deflation in GCSE grades, especially in English / English Literature, across the majority of schools, state and private? Make every girl who didn't get A* resit.

I don't think it's just London- I think it's league tables generally. People only see %ages.

Sigh. If only I lived nearer to you I could get her name using my secret Croydon handshake. Actually - we wouldn't have the time. what with 2 music lessons a week outside school,1 theory lesson, 5 dance lessons and 1 drama class I think she has more than enough to do as it is. Although I am concerned about how fast she can tick.

A curriculum based test is even more unfair than the current VR NVR test.

Once a child is familiar with the format of a VR NVR test then the rest is just learning to work at speed and not to make careless mistakes. If a parent feels that they need two years of this with a paid tutor then that is up to them but it certainly shouldn't be used to make the argument that parents that don't do this are at a disadvantage.

A curriculum based exam on the other hand will penalize the bright kid that is going to a bad school or the kid that is very bright but has difficulty with his English. It will benefit the kid who has a tutor that will tutor them on essay writing techniques and the like.

Also, my prep school friend was on year 5 curriculum in year 4. If we were to switch to a curriculum based exam her school would be spending year 5 revising and prepping while your state school kids would be learning the material for the first time.

How can anyone think that this is a fairer exam?

We have a number of gss in our area and many people from far away even outside our county travel to here to try their luck. Some parents make their kids do 11+ test in two or more counties. As not all 11+ exams are taken on the same date so some parents are able to do that to increase their chances or sometimes even gain more than one offer.
I feel that gss are very irresponsible for their role as state schools . They blame the children for not being the right materials. They complain it is all their parents? faults for preparing dcs for the gss test. They put tutoring industry in very bad light. If they are really such brilliant educators why can?t they bring the kids to their standard? After all they create all the 11+ hassle to select the only kids they want into their schools from a very wide geographical area. Do Good / outstanding comps go on about things like that?

@seeker Personally I think the tables are ridiculous. But when somebody reacts to being told a child was not tutored to get into a selective school by commenting tat it can't be thats selective then and it's lower in the tables than their school - if you know that in fact this isn't the case it can be a bit annoying. But yes I shouldn't take the bait. As I say to DD2 who is experiencing some rather nasty competitive behaviour from a parent of an older child at the moment wrt one of her outside school things - we just have to know what we know and let the rest wash over us.

I am now though filled with french tutor envy. :(

BS you are generalising again. Some state primary schools will be teaching one thing in year 5 or 4 or whatever - others may not.

I wouldn't worry about it, Russian, somebody once told me that a particular grammar school couldn't be very good because a child got in with a 4 in one of its SATs. "Just another infant rabbit keeping it's tiny end up". ( or is that for another thread!)

Russian - you are being ridiculous now (did you ever stop?)

I was making the point that some bright kids go to bad schools and that they would be at an disadvantage compared to my prep school friend who DC is a year ahead in terms of the national curriculum.

What has the fact that there are outstanding state primary schools that are also a year ahead got to do with this point ?

It would be interesting to know if the prep-school educated DCs, who go into the grammar state selective system, lose their advantage over their totally-state educated peers at some point in their secondary school careers? Anyone with any experience of this?

It would be interesting to know if the Heads at the super-selectives have any idea of the % of their pupils who have been tutored to get into their grammars. And also if there is any correlation twixt tutoring and the results the DCs come out with?

Does tutoring give primary school aged DCs a boost which has a long-term impact on their educational outcomes or not?

I think there is an enormous amount of spin (from very competitive middle-class parents) about tutoring. There is an urban myth that it's not possible to get into the super-selectives without being tutored for years. It simply isn't true if your child is naturally bright and quick-on-the-uptake. But people self-perpetuate the belief in their own DCs' interests IMHO.

Long-term, intensive tuition can however make a huge difference if your DC isn't particularly bright. One of DS's classmates (one of six in a mixed state primary which isn't top of the league tables) was always on table 3 or 4, never regarded as even vaguely clever by her classmates (although they were an exceptionally clever-for-state-school class with over 60% Level 5 or above in English and Maths at KS2). Year 3 the tuition started. She passed two of the super-selective 11+ exams and is at a s-s grammar now. But none of the parents, teachers or her peers could have seen that coming when she was in KS1.

PS Making the 11+ exams tutor-proof is about as likely as making financial transactions fraud-proof...there will always be people who find a way around the 'rules'.....

I asked the head of year 7 at dd's grammar school about the prep/state thing. She said that in her experience, prep school kids knew more, but state school kids had better tools for finding stuff they didn't know out. And it all evened out very quickly. One school, one person s opinion, obviously. But interesting.

Russians I am going to show off now and be terribly competitive but DD had French tutor too .

Interesting, Seeker....

gazzalw No experience in a grammar school but in DDs' selective indie any difference between state and private is soon lost, certainly by the end of Year 7.

An aside Copthallresident but is Copthall in Essex? It's been bugging me all morning! Near Ongar/Epping/Theydon Bois?

Yes that goes along with my thoughts, although I might have thought it would take more than a year for the advantage to be negated.

No, South West London, name I took up when involved in heated debate (4000 posts on here!!) on a local schools issue, (which is what got me involved in this wretched excuse for procrastinationwebsite) it's actually a street, but a slight diversionary tactic in terms of where I actually live

Got you, Copthallresident!

gazz - my state primary DCs are at Indies where the bulk of their classmates are prep school kids and things do pretty much even itself out after a term or so but that does depend on the child and/or parent. I mean, we couldn't afford prep AND secondary so made sure that we supplemented the primary school by putting our DCs into afterschool things like Spanish club and Latin club. On top of this we taught them KS level 5 stuff and a bit of L6. If we did none of the above then they might have struggled a bit more.

As for whether tutoring gives a long term boost, lets put it this time. I smile to myself whenever I read a thread about how the mom can't get her DC to focus on homework or exams. Studying an hour a day at secondary is not going to be a culture shock to tutored kids.

I agree that long term tutoring for bright kids serves no purpose. At 6months my DCs plateau-ed. If we had to go for another month I would expect their mock scores to go down. But the reality is that some kids can't cope with a condensed routine. They much rather do one mock paper a week spread over a couple of years.