Go to navigation
It is currently Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:14 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:48 am
Posts: 3
Hi,
Has anyone ever looked at how well tutored children (especially those just tutored for the 11+) went on to perform at Kendrick? I would be curious to know whether they struggled, compared to children who were 'naturally talented', or whether they were able to keep up with the pace? I suspect this infomation / data would be difficult to come across.

Likewise, does anyone also know if those tutored for 11+, then carried on with the tutoring afterwards as they found it benefical above and beyond the 11+?

With the onset of CEM and the apparent 'untutorable' tests, I wondering if there will be a drop in the number of children tutored which will then reduce the ability (as a whole) of the children going to Kendrick.

Best wises
Bambs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:05 pm
Posts: 4024
Location: Reading
Previously the Kendrick test has been verbal and non verbal reasoning so there's no point continuing any form of tutoring in those (private tutors or DIY) beyond the test anyway.

I don't think you would ever really get the data to find out one way or the other.

The aim of CEM, (not sure whether it will be achieved as such) is to reduce the effect of tutoring so those who are naturally brighter are not disadvantaged by not been heavily tutored, so in theory the overall ability of the girls at Kendrick should go up rather than down.

I have no idea if this will work in practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 7
Leaving aside the what do you mean by "well tutored" arguement..

I am sure some/many/lots of the "well tutored" children are also "naturally talented", just that their parents didn't want to take the risk of relying on their "natural talent" (at what?) given the hysteria around Kendrick and the success rate claims of some tuition tutors centres. I'd love to know what one particular one will be claiming this year given the numbers that we know from school and elsewhere who went there.

Some girls struggle regardless of ability, most will struggle with at least something.
I know girls there who have extra tuition-the test doesn't screen for potential in every subject, nor is every clever child necessarily good at everything.
What on earth does VR/NVR have to do with indicating potential in Biology, French etc

Like Tinkers I believe that the group ability should increase as the numbers who get in through drilling (with/without "natural talent") should decrease. Until the tutors work out how to crack that one. There is also an element of luck on the day, how you're feeling etc
There's nothing to choose between those who get a place offer and those who don't, those who get 109 and those below.
And all at 10/11 years of age.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:51 am
Posts: 865
Maybe the Grammar schools were struggling keeping up their standards with a regular cohort of over-tutored children, the staff probably have to work a lot harder!

I'm all for the changes. For just 96 places at Kendrick, level 5/6 girls were giving way to Level 4 girls that managed to get a slightly better score due to a couple of hours performance on the day......something really needed to be done, this is a step in the right direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 888
As far as my limited Kendrick knowledge, test result position has had little correlation with school success and the lowest GCSE results would be "and we're especially proud of ..." on any other local school's website. I don't think any of them do badly. There seem to be some people who are absolutely convinced that you can polish the proverbial and get a child into a grammar school who shouldn't there. I just don't think that's true. I do think that there are many more children of 'grammar school level' than there are children at grammar schools. And I don't think y6 SAT levels are much of an indication of intelligence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 888
sonasona wrote:
Maybe the Grammar schools were struggling keeping up their standards with a regular cohort of over-tutored children


Did you mean to sound so rude?

Quote:
For just 96 places at Kendrick, level 5/6 girls were giving way to Level 4 girls that managed to get a slightly better score due to a couple of hours performance on the day


This may well have been a GOOD thing! Perhaps the tests did sometimes identify those with innate intelligence (good at nvr perhaps) rather than those who revised lots and were pushed to jump through Sats hoops!

That may sound equally rude, but I don't like these threads that end up disparaging children rather than the system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:51 am
Posts: 865
Certainly was not my intention!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:29 pm
Posts: 1805
Location: Berkshire
This old chestnut :lol:

A good friends son, managed to get into the Boys grammar, off the list (He was approx no. 20)
He was one of about 12 that managed 11 A*'s at GCSE that year, the rest of the year obviously got below that. He then went on to do 6 A levels out of choice (one on the side).

So the moral of the story is ........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:29 pm
Posts: 1805
Location: Berkshire
aliportico wrote:
I don't like these threads that end up disparaging children rather than the system.


Quite!

The system, is, to blame.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016