11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

Hamish the HT at SPGS makes it clear that over tutoring is a waste of time 'counter productive'. That it doesn't get girls places at the school!

I wonder how they would find out about false declarations of tutoring though, Yellowtip?

It's not like the LEAs finding fraudulent addresses used for applications, where they have a range of things to check.

I actually spoke to the admissions department of one of the London super-selectives about tutoring.

I was asking more about their 7+ exam rather than the 11+, but having checked with a friend who is a primary teacher, DD would not have covered some of the syllabus in Maths that was required in the exam by the exam date.

The admissions lady said that if the child was coming from a state primary then it was acceptable to tutor in the areas that they wouldn't have yet covered - that they made allowances for state school pupils with minor errors but if they didn't answer questions then no allowance could be made.

However, absolutely no tutoring on what to say at interview etc as it could be spotted a mile off and did the child a dis-service.

In regards to the discussions on getting bright children from more humble children into selective schools when up against the equally bright children who were being given extra help by parents/prep schools/tutoring etc, how would these children be identified?

Would an individual school be asked to nominate pupils (with all the 'but the HT just doesn't like little Johnny'); would only FSM pupils qualify - hence a lot of children falling through the gap again; should state primaries offer prep classes for potential grammar material pupils, should a child from a 'requires improvement' primary get more help than one from an 'outstanding' primary?

There is also a huge range in what primary schools achieve - we have DD's name down on the waiting-list for a primary that is in inner-city London, they have over 50% FSM, over 50% EAL plus high mobility and the majority of students are from ethnic backgrounds that are not known to put a high premium on education, yet 20% of their KS2 students get L6 in Maths. This is way more successful academically than a lot of primary schools in leafy suburbs with a more MC intake.

It's obviously not fool proof LaVolcan. It's quite intimidating though. These top independent schools have the luxury of an interview process though, which grammars do not.

She's worried though that some get in that shouldn't. That it masks true abilities, hence the having to declare the tutoring.

Thing is how can tutoring really make so much of a difference? I've seen the papers for St Paul's - you need to understand and apply the concepts etc. I've read papers where children have dropped stock phrases into the composition etc, they are usually fairly easy to spot. If they are really not up to the mark and don't have the requisite understanding they'll come a cropper elsewhere on the papers. Show me a child that doesn't have ability at Maths that can pass a Maths paper for St Paul's and I'll show you an unusual child.

It begs the question of what we mean by tutoring. For some it's called 'enrichment' and it's a way of life from pre-school onwards. For some its about mentoring, instilling confidence and taking the curriculum further outside of school. If you discuss literature and poetry and encourage your children to write at home - is that tutoring?

Is an hour week of VR and NVR that a child does outside school once a week deemed tutoring that 'should be declared'?

What about the primary schools. A very academic prep that's a feeder for St Paul's might have children in classes of 16 tops sitting at old fashioned desks in a horseshoe formation going way beyond the curriculum. Another primary might have a mixed ability class of 30 & concentrate on getting all to level 4 and encourage creativity by poster making and having a no homework policy.

Presumably they look closely at where a child's been to school and make allowances accordingly then? More being expected from a child at an academic Prep feeder?

The HT makes it abundantly clear that if anyone sneaks in under the radar and isn't up to it, then they may be asked to leave. They simply won't thrive and she's not in the business of making girls unhappy.

She also makes it abundantly clear that parents who put their DDs in theis position want to take a very hard look at themselves!

No one wants anyone to wilt but surely if a girl passes that difficult exam & does well at interview she thoroughly deserves her place? She must have the requisite intellect & if she works hard & strives could do well?

I am not sure I like the idea of knowing your place on the IQ bell curve - why bother at all in that case? If I'd got that message I'd likely have given up.

Surely a hard working girl, pleasant & friendly has as much potential to do well for herself & heap glory on the school as a innately clever slacker?

I hear some do well that get into selective schools through the sibling policy. Often less clever - apparently - than others they often outperform them in exams.

Why do people want the band so low,my niece may have scraped in to a 10% band but no lower.If my niece had gone to a comprehensive instead of 4A"S at a level she would have got 3C"S because you become like your surrondings,maybe you think you true potential is what you achieve,without trying or being pushed but i can assure you the independent and public schools dont think like that. Why do people want to go back to the attitudes of the middle of the 70s, why bother pushing kids "JUST LET THEM COAST" because thats the true potential. I presume S.P.G.S is St Pauls Girls school. Passing the exam and them being told your not good enough is the same as, the rules being changed in the middle of a game without being told.

Beatback- you are aware that most of the country doesn't have selective schools, don't you? And that many children get As? It's not just in grammar schools that people do well.

Yes i am aware of that but in my niece"s case i know she would have become "MEDIORCE" because she would have done,the same as the others, the fact that at her grammar school B"s were average pushed her to be above average,and get A"s. I have also said in a previous post how bad my school was in a totally comprehensive area.

You don't know that at all. You should have more faith in your niece.

I also think that if you get A"s in a comprehensive you are something very special, "BRILLIANT" and do you believe kids like that should not be streamed. If a kid was at a modern school and was particuarly good at maths or other subjects why could they not take that subject at the grammar school, and why could we not have joint sports teams,if it is the lack of intergration that worries people.

But they are streamed at comprehensives!

"f a kid was at a modern school and was particuarly good at maths or other subjects why could they not take that subject at the grammar school, and why could we not have joint sports teams,if it is the lack of intergration that worries people."

Congratulations! You have invented the comprehensive school......

They would need to return to the sm for lunch, obviously...

No we have not because if it was a comprehensive, the bad kids bring the whole thing down. I know i witnessed it and we are talking about 2 or 3 kids per class because they are probaly were unlucky in the exams and have matured in to the required level. SEEKER you have 1DC at a grammar school and 1 DC at a modern dont you. I bet your DC at the modern is near the top,and can get frustrated by the rest of the class,what if he had is best subject taught at the grammar. Unfortunatly the totally comprehensive model does not work for many reasons, mainly because in many circumstances it gets dragged down to the lowest level,and becomes "VERY SLOPPY" i have also said that they are secondary modern schools that are far superior to comprehensives in some areas, that have the same social economic mix.

YOU CAN SEE I WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED CANT YOU.

Very funny because we can only have the required social contact of 2hrs per week. Any more and the parents would start thinking my kid might catch the "THICK GENE". The funny thing is the most ardent supporter"s of grammar schools for their kids,seem to be the ones with the lowest qualifacations. Why do you think that is,"ITS BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT THEIR KIDS TO SUFFER LIKE THEM"and want their kids to get half a chance.

But, Backbeat even assuming that there is a correlation between supporting grammars and qualifications held, would those same people not be concerned about their child 'suffering like them' if they didn't pass?

I do wish you'd stop making the sweeping generalizations about 'bad kids' and so on - I'm not saying there aren't any challenges, or that those challenges aren't very different from any encountered in selective schools - but to say that a bright child won't do well in a comprehensive is very general and fatalistic!

Backbeat-in supporting grammar schools you are also supporting secondary modern schools- which by your reasoning must be even worse than comprehensives.

STEAMING NIT SEEKER. Why do you believe because it is a Secondary Modern school it has to be rubbish, they can achieve great things. I could name 6 Secondary Modern schools off the top of my head now around the country that achieve, better than the Comprehensives in non selective areas. Why do you believe that comprehensive schools can help non academic kids achieve their potential,particuarly in inner cities where there is other,dynamics going on. It has been said for years that we should have had "VOCATIONAL BASED SCHOOLS" as well. The J.C.B academy in Staffordshire is doing a brilliant job,teaching kids the 3 R"s and giving them an apprenticeship at the Academy, and many will find jobs at J.C.B or other engineering companies. Why we are trying to fit square pegs in round holes,by trying to get 40% of kids to uni when at best they are probaly,only 20% of jobs that are degree level. Because we are going to have so many "GRADUATES" it is going to become impossible, for kids who are not graduates to have a meangiful career. They have 3 chances 1 they are a brilliant "ENTERUPNEER" you are born that way, you a brilliant "SPORTSPERSON" you are born that way or you become a "REALITY STAR".Comprehensive schools are not going to solve this problem and we have to start looking,at achieving education that puts square pegs in square holes.

I don't believe that! But I'm confused about why you think secondary moderns are better than comprehensives?

Most 11 year olds, to continue your metaphor, don't yet know what kind of peg-shape they are. They can be a bit square in Maths and a little bit rounder in English, and just starting to realise they might be, I dunno, an ellipse in Athletics (though ideally not in the shot put! )

I did not say they were better or worse. The point i am making is that it depends on the school. You have some good Comprehensives mainly in prosperous areas,that become selection through house price. You also have some good secondary modern schools. You have no bad grammar schools. I have said why are trying to make 40% of kids go to uni. Despite my lack of qualifacations, i have a lot of teachers and lectures as close friends head teachers of primary and secondary schools. Off the record they believe in a lot of what i am saying, but because of the politcal correctness in education. They dare not say these things because it would be career suicide.

I have also said that if the child becomes good at a particular subject he could take that subject at the grammar school.

But if it was a comprehensive, said child could just move up a set or two.