Any early signs that a child will be capable of passing 11+?

[NumptyNu]

Potentially a question for teachers really, but feel free to chip in mums and dads with any useful info and experiences. My question is, does it follow that if your child is doing well in year one or two, that you can extrapolate out a few years and assume they will be 11+ candidate? Or vice versa, would a slow reader at age 5 result in a lower potential for passing the 11+?

Is this a classic case of primary schooling being a marathon rather than a sprint? Or is there a clear correlation between bright kids at age 6 going on to 11+ success?

Bucks schools won't do anything related to 11+ either. Bucks CC are very clear about this. Our 11+ is meant to be based on the Y5 curriculum but that's a lie as far as I'm concerned. Only the children working beyond Y5 curriculum passed the 11+ in our state school.

DS just passed the 11+ this month. We felt from early on that he was bright and enquiring. He had a good early vocabulary, found numbers easy, read before school and reads for pleasure all the time. He was Level 3s at end of yr 2 and good level 5s at end of yr5. Still, we got a tutor for Y5 one hour a week and we did bits at home. The point of the tutor wasn't to get his knowledge up it was about getting used to the exam format and question type. No-one teaches NVR in school!

I guess as a family we would fit many of the 'criteria' considered to be a factor in his passing (as set out by others on this thread) except that the DC have very normal names, eat in McD's regularly don't tell anyone and rarely buy organic!

Our 11+ is meant to be based on the Y5 curriculum but that's a lie as far as I'm concerned. Only the children working beyond Y5 curriculum passed the 11+ in our state school.

I hope you fed that back to whoever over seas all this, very naughty.

Genuine question, as I know little about this.

If the exam is higher than y5 curriculum, then obviously children who have been tutored will benefit Someone will need to have taught them or are they just assuming that bright children know that stuff?

If it is based on y5, then more children will meet that standard, which means it will come down to speed, accuracy and exam technique - which will benefit the tutored kids even more surely?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

newpencil case - I think the idea is that if a child is ahead they will be being taught beyond the Y5 curriculum at school. What they won't be being taught in a lot of state schools, is NVR or exam technique.

Or if they are working at Y5 levels, then anything at Y6 level.

Children that pass in our area have either had tutoring DIY from their parents or from a paid tutor.

IME children at primary school are taught at a level appropriate to them up to the Y6 ceiling (so currently up to L6). If you hit the Y6 ceiling in Y5, you have quite a dull Y6 (happened to both my DDs). But on the other hand, you are well prepared for the 11+ if you're doing it and it involves English and maths papers. the 11+ is designed to identify the brightest kids, allegedly, so it's not surprising that the kids who have over swiftly through the NC levels at school tend to be the successful ones. Kids who are tutored above their 'real' level may do well in the 11+ but not necessarily thereafter. Again, IME, primary schools do not keep pupils at an artificially low level for the sake of it, until they hit that L6 ceiling. After that it is a different (but understandable) story.

MOVED swiftly. Blooming autocorrect.

Our paper is level 5/6.

As every point counts and some schools push their pupils more than others frankly anybody would be bats to just sit back and assume everything will be covered at an equal level.

Our boys didn't find what they did with us and their tutor in anyway much of a stretch,it just needed to be covered.

Things like the bus stop method give kids an advantage as they can do calculations much quicker.Interestingly the boys only did column addition 2 weeks ago and are only just doing the lead up to the bus stop method.They are top group year 6 and bored shatless. One brought home last weeks work which was multiplying numbers by 10,100s etc.They are beyond bored and it makes my blood boil.If we hadn't done anything they wouldn't have places,2 children in a school which did cover the work(probably private) would instead.

That said it's the same with Eng.Things like hyperbole,imagery,challenging reading comps,being able to do a timed essay etc all need to be done and not all are in all state schools.My friends with kids in prep schools infer it is done far more in private schools.

VR is the least of your problems.It's a doddle and easily picked up by chucking a book at your dc and leaving them to it.

Surely anyone who can pass their GCSE's, get good A level grades, a degree and a masters should (retrospectively) be considered 11+ material?

That would be every adult in my household then. Except none of us went to grammar school.

DH (who now has a PHd) failed the 11+. I most definitely would have failed the 11+ (going by what I see in my old school books) yet as an adult have a good degree, an MA and a PGCE. I don't think this means that we weren't 'bright' enough for grammar school, only that we didn't have the right sort of preparation.

Which leads me to the conclusion that all you need to mark you out as 11+ material are enough smarts to eventually get to university, and parents with the motivation to prepare you for the 11+.

Rabbit ours do.

My dc are pretty much treading water.

Level 6 has been mentioned.Kind of hoping things will up a gear next term otherwise they won't have a hope in hell.

That said I'm not bothered re the result but them doing the work and not coming home complaining that their maths lessons are too easy and boring.

What gets my goat is that all the kids from my kid's school who got into grammar were tutored.Every single one of them.The school are focusing on the middle band because they know they can.They'll just sit back,enjoy Ofsted being off their back and proclaim any level 6s are down to them.

Schools in more challenging areas or without the 11+ don't have this luxury.

On the Bucks web site, no mention is made of the year 5 curriculum and clearly some parts of the test bear no relation to it at all. It does test vocabulary, maths, NVR and problem solving. It is also down to speed, accuracy and exam technique. These don't have much to do with the year 5 curriculum either, unless the child is continually tested! Children can perform well in the school curriculum, which is sharply focused and mostly well taught, but may not have the mental agility or processing speed to get 121 in the Bucks test. Clearly, lots of children working at a solid level 5 in year 6, do not get a grammar school place. There are plenty of these children in the secondary modern schools.

When I took the Bucks 11+ many years ago! every single morning in year 5 and year 6 was spent doing 11+ practice. At no time did we do science, history, geography, drama or a MFL. The afternoons were spent on music, art and projects. You cannot imagine how badly prepared most of us were for the grammar school curriculum!

I strongly believe talented but poorer children should be offered an after school club for exam technique to even up the playing field. They also need much more work on an extended vocabulary and mathematical skills. Children from the poorer areas are greatly under-represented at our grammar schools and some quite large primary schools maybe get 1 or 2 children to the grammars every year. Sometimes it is none! The test may be "tutor proof" but the technique and preparation can still be tutored and poorer families deserve this help. Maybe then the grammar schools might get the bright, but poorer, child through the door!

LePetit, that isn't how ofsted work any more.

Ofsted are not interested in how many level 5 and how many level 6. Their main priority now is that every child moves a certain number of levels between KS1 and KS2. I think it is 2 levels for average and 3 levels for outstanding. Which means anyone who got level 3 at KS1 needs to get level 6 at KS2 in order for the school to get its outstanding.

This is a relatively recent change. I know in our school last year it lead to level 6 tutoring in year 6 to get 'enough' level 6.

Or vice versa, would a slow reader at age 5 result in a lower potential for passing the 11+?

No, reading ability kicks in at a variety of ages (my DD was a slow reader relative to most of her class all through KS1 - many of the early fluent readers didn't even bother trying for 11+). CATs in yr5 seem to be the most reliable indicator.

Interesting.Is it level 6 for level 3 at Sats or level 5?

My level 3 at ks1 Sats child dc is already a 5, getting a 6 seems to be waaaaay down on the list of priorities.

Db basically left junior school virtually illiterate. Passed his eleven plus though as got 100% in the Maths and reasoning bits and school called him and dm in for chats and more tests and let him in.

He got an a at English a level 7 years later!

Ah just re read your post.Think I get it.

Dc's school is Good,I'm guessing his progress to get good would need to be 5. School clearly not bothered re being Outstanding hence those already a 5 being left to tread water whilst they focus on the middle band.

What worries me is that we're going to have a year of this until he goes to secondary.He'll have completely switched off by then.

I agree lePetit. The saving grace for ds in year 6 was the level 6 lessons. They were hard, but they really got him focussed, and he seemed more settled and happy, which was a large part due to him being challenged academically.

ds has just started secondary and he is loving it, and loving the challenge as well.

We have an separate infants and juniors. I think there is always a little 'tension' between Infants wanting lots of level 3s at KS1 and (outstanding) Juniors knowing how that impacts on them. DS1's year had 50% at level 3.

I may have course made that up entirely - I always like to add a little drama wherever possible

They are beyond bored and it makes my blood boil.If we hadn't done anything they wouldn't have places,2 children in a school which did cover the work(probably private) would instead.

Yep, the private schools mostly have aim and are heading for something, parents want results.

state schools are working agaisnt dc in my opinion and not helping them. Yes make test less tutorable ( if you can?) but supoprt state students for god sake

MillyMollyMama

Can't find the original link (I'm on my iPhone and its a pain) but a quote below from somewhere else from the Bucks CC FAQs about the introduction. of the new CEM test last year...

^30. Won’t taking the tests so early in Year 6 disadvantage some pupils because they will not yet have learned things on which they may be tested?
No. There will be nothing in the tests that goes beyond what pupils will have covered in Year 5.^

It has been reported that more privately educated kids are passing the CEM exam than the old style exam.

I think in bucks last year it was reported that 70% of private school children passed and 19% of state school children LePetit.

The discrepancy actually went up in some areas.

You can tutor for anything.

That's what I mean. It all comes down to speed, not making mistakes etc.

Far more difficult for children who haven't been drilled in exam technique.