Average ability kids at grammar schools.

[manicstreetpreacher]

Hey all! Please be gentle as this is my first post after many months of lurking.

Just wondered what everyone thinks of this really. I don't wish to sound unkind in any way so please bear with me.

My dd failed her 11 plus by 10 points despite being the cleverest girl in her class (sorry, not crowing - there's nothing worse than mothers who do that on a regular basis). She was at 5a in all her Mock SATs (don't get the true ones back till next week) yet just couldn't get to grips with the 11 plus thing. She did a few practice papers and just couldn't grasp it. A tutor was out of the question as we simply didn't, and still don't, have the money to fund it.

Having looked around the alternative school and being impressed with it she has stated that she was more than happy to go there. So I didn't appeal - to be honest, I don't think I would have stood a chance anyway as she didn't just fail by one or two points!

So I would be interested to see what people think of this as I know for a fact that kids of a lesser ability have gotten places at the grammars. My dd said that there are a couple in her class who really struggle with their maths but are going to the grammars and she said to me 'surely they're not going to be able to cope?' Which got me thinking about the unfairness of the system.

Do the grammars expect you to be at least at a level 5 for stuff? If that's the case then what is the point of the 11 plus?

And no, I'm not bitter and twisted that my dd hasn't made it in. That's life. I wasn't prepared to shove practice papers at her day and night to ensure she got in. The poor things get little enough time to be kids as it is and I'm quite sure she'll do well at the non selective academy she is looking forward to starting in September.

Thoughts please?

Thanks.

Just wonder what do gs do with children who are intelligent or lucky enough to pass the vr and nvr tests but turned out to be lazy or no ambitions or just not interested in academic studies?

They would spend a lot of time in detention.

Most subjects involve deductive reasoning! Analogical reasoning is also part of NVR and is important in most subjects.

I was wondering which subjects, particularly, you would think pupils would do badly at if they were bad at NVR.

I don't think a child would do badly at any subject if they were bad at NVR, particularly if we are using 'badly' to mean not spectacularly enough to get into a superselective grammar school that only takes the top 5% of kids.

There may be reasons why children are not exceptional at NVR - they may not be exceptional at problems presented in a spatial way just as some children are not exceptional at problems presented in a verbal way, which is why when people sit aptitude tests they are generally given tests that measure analogical reasoning in different ways - that makes the tests fairer.

There may also be children who do really well in academic subjects because they work very hard, have a good memory, or are good at working out what kind of answers are required in a test. They may have quite average logic skills but be able to mask that with their other abilities.

But being able to reason very well is going to make it easier to do well in academic subjects and in any job which is primarily based on intellect.

No, I meant badly in terms of badly, not not being in the top 5%. DS did aptitude tests in VR and NVR as aptitude tests; did well in the first and badly in the second, but I don't really think they correlated particularly to the things he did well or averagely in at secondary.

I don't think there is a correlation between NVR and a particular subject. All subjects involve reasoning. If somebody is very good at VR and bad at NVR that could be because a. they have very good reasoning skills but struggle with the spatial presentation of information due to a learning difficulty, b. they have average reasoning skills which they are masking in the VR test due to an extensive vocabulary or c. they have good reasoning skills but lack experience that would have developed those skills in spatial ways.

And some people do have a non verbal learning difficulty. If you were trying to explain to them where Ireland was, a map would be difficult for them to understand or remember, but if you explained it verbally and numerically, they would find that easy to comprehend and remember.

Although I'm not an expert and have never studied psychology.

I can never understand why the "spatial" type of test features in GS selection. From my memories of GS, the only time spatial awareness came into play was finding our way to the labs.

The rest of the time we were using our memories for facts, or using verbal skills to write essays. (and doing a bit of maths of course, which included a TINY study of angles and shapes)

Of course it might all have changed in the last 40 years, and maybe they do a lot of practical work at GS now.

Choccy, the 'spatial' bit isn't relevant in itself. What is relevant is that it offers a reasoning test that gives children who are intellectually capable but not particularly good at showing that in a verbal test. There may be a number of reasons for this - the child may have English as a second language or may have been to a primary school that did not have very good teaching. Children with high NVR but poor VR are often those who are very intelligent but have had poor teaching/limited exposure to a wide vocabulary at home. NVR gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their reasoning skills which are useful in all subjects without the stumbling block of a limited taught vocabulary that they would experience if only given a VR test.

And I find it impossible to believe that you went to a grammar school and never had to deal with data presented in a non verbal way. Did you not use maps in Geography, or diagrams of volcanoes, or diagrams in Science, or learn basic drawing skills in Art, or read music in Music?

Peaks:
Yes we drew a few maps in Geography and diagrams in chemistry, but the only thing that could relate to those diagram puzzles would have been measuring the distance of a road on a map, or perhaps working out the profile of a hill from contour lines. Generally the diagrams would be just showing you what's what, not something where you have to look at it from differenet angles and work out the logical progression from one to the next.

As for Art, they never TAUGHT us any drawing skills, just gave us a few objects to draw. (Art not being considered an academic subject, it eas treated as light relief). As for Music, they did show us the crotchet and quavers to beat out rhythms, but we never had to work anything out such as what the next note would be according to a logical sequence. I would argue that reading music is simply decoding using a different code to the alphabet.
(disclaimer, I didn't do GCSE music)

In retrospect, it was a pretty cr*p school.

I'm not trying to be snide about those kind of tests, they have served me well to get some good jobs in the past, but I don't see that they necesarily pick out the kids who will do best in GS education. But neither do the verbal ones, as they depend a lot on what the child has already learned, rather than showing what they can learn.

Choccie, just as there is a limited relationship between the spatial stuff in an NVR test and the spatial stuff in school, there is a limited relationship between the questions in a VR test and the essays in school. That is how my DS has got into a grammar school with a very high VR score but with a limited ability in essay writing.

Somebody like the OP's daughter clearing has a huge capacity to learn the taught curriculum, no doubt as a result of a lively and interested mind. If we were going to select children based on those things, we'd have to put in place something like the common entrance exam for independent schools at 13, which actually test subject based knowledge in multiple subjects.

But state grammar schools can't afford to do that and they can't wait until the kids are 13 anyway. So they have to test the thing that all subjects have in common - reasoning. And they hopefully do it in more than one way to give everyone a chance - so my DS did numerical and verbal reasoning, and it sounds like the OP's DD did non-verbal and verbal reasoning. And that means that some kids who should be at the grammar don't get to go because the test is imperfect. There are some areas of the country where primary heads can recommend children who failed the eleven plus but they believe should have a place - and it is a shame for the OP that she doesn't live in an area like that, because then her DD would be going.

As for drawing skills, a lot of schools don't teach them. That is Ofsted's major issue in its review of the teaching of art; most schools do not teach the kids drawing skills. A bit like asking children to do well in English without ever teaching them how to write.

I don't know that it's they can't afford to do it- they do SATS tests afterall, but more they are trying to find a method which is not (or at least less)affected by the quality of teaching a child has had.