Summer revision courses
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
hermanmunster
- Posts: 12901
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
crumbs - what a heated debate this turned into after I had switched off last night!
Can see the various points ... I know it is almost 4 decades since I took the KE exam but I don't remember us doing anything out of school time let alone in the holiday!!!!!!!
I live in a different area now but DD and DS did not do any work in holidays before 11 plus exams - they knew how to do the questions and tended (I presume
) to retain this. I'm sure they would have got seriously bored if they had to do exam work over the hols (then locally it is VR and NVR and I reckon they get pretty boring.....) They had much more fun doing other things in the hols and chilling out.
Good luck with whatever you decide.
Can see the various points ... I know it is almost 4 decades since I took the KE exam but I don't remember us doing anything out of school time let alone in the holiday!!!!!!!
I live in a different area now but DD and DS did not do any work in holidays before 11 plus exams - they knew how to do the questions and tended (I presume
) to retain this. I'm sure they would have got seriously bored if they had to do exam work over the hols (then locally it is VR and NVR and I reckon they get pretty boring.....) They had much more fun doing other things in the hols and chilling out. Good luck with whatever you decide.
-
fm
Dear Herman,
The exam for Birmingham is written by the University of Durham and is very different to your normal NFER one.
The KE exam used to be a straight non-verbal and verbal exam. I tutored my eldest for about 8 days before the exam and she passed.
The exam changed 5 years ago and is a much more difficult affair now. A child would have to be at the very best of independent prep. schools or naturally extremely able and a huge bookworm to manage this exam on minimal preparation.
Alongside the KE exam, I tutor for the Sutton exams which are still NFER written. Those I could prepare (and have done so) a very clever child for in a matter of weeks.
Two years ago I had a pupil in an ordinary state school without much history of 11 plus whose teacher had also done the KE exam many years ago. She showed him some of my homework and he advised her that it was too difficult and she wouldn't need to do anything like that in the exam. Fortunately she chose to ignore him and was the only one from her school to gain entry (and according to her she certainly wasn't the cleverest in the class).
As well as requiring an extensive vocabulary, a child has to be extremely quick at computation to manage the mental arithmetic (much of it algebra based) in the time given, as well as being able to do a type of non-verbal they will never have practised before.
I am not claiming you need a professional tutor. I am fairly sure on any one year half of my parents could do the job themselves (but choose not to).
I am not claiming all children need to work through the summer either. This year I have a fairly good cohort and at least half will probably get away with not doing a stroke during the summer, but the other half may not.
I know you mean well and I totally agree that a reasonably clever child will pass a non-verbal and verbal exam without endless preparation. In fact, endless preparation can make them very stale at both of these so I never advocate it. But the KE exam really is a different ball game.
The exam for Birmingham is written by the University of Durham and is very different to your normal NFER one.
The KE exam used to be a straight non-verbal and verbal exam. I tutored my eldest for about 8 days before the exam and she passed.
The exam changed 5 years ago and is a much more difficult affair now. A child would have to be at the very best of independent prep. schools or naturally extremely able and a huge bookworm to manage this exam on minimal preparation.
Alongside the KE exam, I tutor for the Sutton exams which are still NFER written. Those I could prepare (and have done so) a very clever child for in a matter of weeks.
Two years ago I had a pupil in an ordinary state school without much history of 11 plus whose teacher had also done the KE exam many years ago. She showed him some of my homework and he advised her that it was too difficult and she wouldn't need to do anything like that in the exam. Fortunately she chose to ignore him and was the only one from her school to gain entry (and according to her she certainly wasn't the cleverest in the class).
As well as requiring an extensive vocabulary, a child has to be extremely quick at computation to manage the mental arithmetic (much of it algebra based) in the time given, as well as being able to do a type of non-verbal they will never have practised before.
I am not claiming you need a professional tutor. I am fairly sure on any one year half of my parents could do the job themselves (but choose not to).
I am not claiming all children need to work through the summer either. This year I have a fairly good cohort and at least half will probably get away with not doing a stroke during the summer, but the other half may not.
I know you mean well and I totally agree that a reasonably clever child will pass a non-verbal and verbal exam without endless preparation. In fact, endless preparation can make them very stale at both of these so I never advocate it. But the KE exam really is a different ball game.
-
hermanmunster
- Posts: 12901
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
Hi Fm
Interesting what you say about the KE exam (this is the High School I'm referring to - I lived in Solihull so never did the CH exams etc) - I wonder if the exam becoming more difficult has actually made any difference to the outcomes at the school over the years ?
Also are the outcomes of the KE grammar schools now so much better that other schools using VRand NVR? Does this indicate that having a more difficult exam that can't be managed without prep ++ is justified?
Interesting what you say about the KE exam (this is the High School I'm referring to - I lived in Solihull so never did the CH exams etc) - I wonder if the exam becoming more difficult has actually made any difference to the outcomes at the school over the years ?
Also are the outcomes of the KE grammar schools now so much better that other schools using VRand NVR? Does this indicate that having a more difficult exam that can't be managed without prep ++ is justified?
-
fm
Funny you ask that because this year's GCSE cohort are the first to be selected by the new exam so it will be interesting to see if there is any difference in the results within the schools or their results compared with other selective schools. I suspect the real difference it will make is at A level.
I didn't understand your reference to living in Solihull initially but then I remembered that only Birmingham children used to be allowed to sit the KE exam until about 12 years ago (?).
The University of Durham claim their exam is tutor proof and therefore, in theory, it shouldn't be possible to prepare for it. Certainly in the early days (before people caught on to what was in the exam) a typical successful candidate would be an intelligent child with a high reading age and an extensive vocabulary and also enough ability in maths. The non-verbal still seems tutor proof in that I can train up children to do very well in the NFER Sutton exam but not in the KE exam which tends to revert to their initial talent for it and their level of confidence in deciphering something entirely new.
By and large, a very intelligent child attending a good primary school (whether state or private) will gain entry with possibly minimal preparation (at a guess that would account for about 250 places given). A merely brighter than average child will not, no matter how much prep. is done (whereas volume practice for an NFER test may lead to such a child gaining entry elsewhere) and I'd guess at least 1000 candidates are in this category. Between these two categories lie over 3000 viable candidates (chasing about another 350 places), any of whom could possibly gain entry with the right preparation.
The trick is knowing into which category your child lies. If she or he were in the first category, then fair enough. Don't go overboard with the prep. If they were in the second category, the whole thing is pointless anyway. But I would argue the vast majority of hopefuls are in the third category where the amount and type of prep. will make the difference to gaining a place or not.
It would certainly make my life easier if they went back to verbal and non-verbal but I don't think that is going to happen. Warwickshire have followed Birmingham's lead and gone for University of Durham, your old school also abandoned NFER some time ago, and I've heard that QM Walsall may be following suit in the future.
I didn't understand your reference to living in Solihull initially but then I remembered that only Birmingham children used to be allowed to sit the KE exam until about 12 years ago (?).
The University of Durham claim their exam is tutor proof and therefore, in theory, it shouldn't be possible to prepare for it. Certainly in the early days (before people caught on to what was in the exam) a typical successful candidate would be an intelligent child with a high reading age and an extensive vocabulary and also enough ability in maths. The non-verbal still seems tutor proof in that I can train up children to do very well in the NFER Sutton exam but not in the KE exam which tends to revert to their initial talent for it and their level of confidence in deciphering something entirely new.
By and large, a very intelligent child attending a good primary school (whether state or private) will gain entry with possibly minimal preparation (at a guess that would account for about 250 places given). A merely brighter than average child will not, no matter how much prep. is done (whereas volume practice for an NFER test may lead to such a child gaining entry elsewhere) and I'd guess at least 1000 candidates are in this category. Between these two categories lie over 3000 viable candidates (chasing about another 350 places), any of whom could possibly gain entry with the right preparation.
The trick is knowing into which category your child lies. If she or he were in the first category, then fair enough. Don't go overboard with the prep. If they were in the second category, the whole thing is pointless anyway. But I would argue the vast majority of hopefuls are in the third category where the amount and type of prep. will make the difference to gaining a place or not.
It would certainly make my life easier if they went back to verbal and non-verbal but I don't think that is going to happen. Warwickshire have followed Birmingham's lead and gone for University of Durham, your old school also abandoned NFER some time ago, and I've heard that QM Walsall may be following suit in the future.
"By and large, a very intelligent child attending a good primary school (whether state or private) will gain entry with possibly minimal preparation (at a guess that would account for about 250 places given). A merely brighter than average child will not, no matter how much prep. is done "
Delurking after a couple of years of interested reading because I don't think this sort of comment is entirely helpful. My DS is currently at a KE school having taken the new style test. He had no more than 6 months prep for the exam - all at home with no tutor. We gave him a few practice tests a month, using the NFER style books you can buy at any bookshop. He was at a state primary with average results. Neither my partner nor I went to grammar school and have no experience teaching or tutoring.
As far as I can see, this is what you mean buy "minimal prep". I would say he is "brighter than average" but not "very intelligent". He is certainly nowhere near the top achievers in his year group, although he is not struggling with the KE pace. His verbal skills were in fact below average - he certainly didn't do lots of reading to improve his vocabulary before the test.
I am saying this with no intention of boasting, just in setting the facts straight for the benefit of junior school parents. I understand that it is in the tutors' interests to encourage parents to seek tutoring, and in many cases this benefits the child. But your comments are basically telling new parents that if they don't get their child tutored, they don't stand even a remote chance of getting their kids in to the grammars, and that's simply not true.
It seemed to me that when speaking to my DS and his friends when they got their secondary school places, that motivation and lack of parental pressure seemed to have just as much effect in getting places. We didn't put any pressure on DS to go to KE, it was his request to take the exam. The few children who got in from his primary had minimal tutoring and minimal prep. One child who had extremely vocal pro-tutoring parents didn't get a single independent/grammar place, despite sitting tests for what appeared to be every school in the West Midlands!
I realise my DS was extremely fortunate and I am not trying to put anyone off tutors. I just wish the tutors and the pro-tutor parents would stop trying to scare people into parting with their money. There are so many exams once your child gets into secondary school - grammar or not - that to put children under that sort of pressure in Year 3/4/5 seems harsh and unnecessary.
I think I'll go back to lurking now as I'm sure this post will upset some people, but hopefully it will give a few more parents of "above average" children a bit of a boost.
Delurking after a couple of years of interested reading because I don't think this sort of comment is entirely helpful. My DS is currently at a KE school having taken the new style test. He had no more than 6 months prep for the exam - all at home with no tutor. We gave him a few practice tests a month, using the NFER style books you can buy at any bookshop. He was at a state primary with average results. Neither my partner nor I went to grammar school and have no experience teaching or tutoring.
As far as I can see, this is what you mean buy "minimal prep". I would say he is "brighter than average" but not "very intelligent". He is certainly nowhere near the top achievers in his year group, although he is not struggling with the KE pace. His verbal skills were in fact below average - he certainly didn't do lots of reading to improve his vocabulary before the test.
I am saying this with no intention of boasting, just in setting the facts straight for the benefit of junior school parents. I understand that it is in the tutors' interests to encourage parents to seek tutoring, and in many cases this benefits the child. But your comments are basically telling new parents that if they don't get their child tutored, they don't stand even a remote chance of getting their kids in to the grammars, and that's simply not true.
It seemed to me that when speaking to my DS and his friends when they got their secondary school places, that motivation and lack of parental pressure seemed to have just as much effect in getting places. We didn't put any pressure on DS to go to KE, it was his request to take the exam. The few children who got in from his primary had minimal tutoring and minimal prep. One child who had extremely vocal pro-tutoring parents didn't get a single independent/grammar place, despite sitting tests for what appeared to be every school in the West Midlands!
I realise my DS was extremely fortunate and I am not trying to put anyone off tutors. I just wish the tutors and the pro-tutor parents would stop trying to scare people into parting with their money. There are so many exams once your child gets into secondary school - grammar or not - that to put children under that sort of pressure in Year 3/4/5 seems harsh and unnecessary.
I think I'll go back to lurking now as I'm sure this post will upset some people, but hopefully it will give a few more parents of "above average" children a bit of a boost.
-
fm
I am not trying to scare anyone into getting a tutor or scare anyone full stop.
Nowhere have I said that a child has to be professionally tutored to gain a place. In fact, if you read my previous posts, I have said that parents can do the job just as well as a tutor so I am not trying to drum up trade. I have more than enough. Most of my parents are perfectly capable of doing it themselves but choose not to.
I wouldn't necessarily call 6 months minimal preparation. I have had students gain entry on 8 weeks prep. and less, and a friend's child who did literally none at all and gained entry.
But, yes, you are right. The child entering the exam without the burden of pressure and with confidence is very important. For some this will be achieved by thorough preparation and for others this may be down to natural confidence.
And, yes, you can get away with having a weak area (e.g. vocabulary) if you have a particularly strong area (e.g. non-verbal).
Nowhere have I said that a child has to be professionally tutored to gain a place. In fact, if you read my previous posts, I have said that parents can do the job just as well as a tutor so I am not trying to drum up trade. I have more than enough. Most of my parents are perfectly capable of doing it themselves but choose not to.
I wouldn't necessarily call 6 months minimal preparation. I have had students gain entry on 8 weeks prep. and less, and a friend's child who did literally none at all and gained entry.
But, yes, you are right. The child entering the exam without the burden of pressure and with confidence is very important. For some this will be achieved by thorough preparation and for others this may be down to natural confidence.
And, yes, you can get away with having a weak area (e.g. vocabulary) if you have a particularly strong area (e.g. non-verbal).
Fm, I didn't mean to imply you were trying to drum up trade, or that you personally were claiming there was no alternative to tutoring. I was trying to give an alternative view to something you stated.
Your post originally said "the trick is knowing into which category your child lies. If she or he were in the first category, then fair enough. Don't go overboard with the prep. If they were in the second category, the whole thing is pointless anyway."
and that was the point I was disagreeing with. It's not pointless. An "above average" child can succeed without heavy duty prep (and compared to many children I've seen, and on this board, 6 months is minimal!) Which you then agreed with by saying that someone you know got in with no prep. But I suppose that could have been a "very intelligent" child.
I suppose I'm really just taking issue with the word "pointless", but I'm now seeing friends and relatives stressing about tutors for their junior school children, and worrying how to afford one in the current financial climate. I don't want them to think it's "pointless" putting their children forward for the 11+ if they can't be tutored.
Your post originally said "the trick is knowing into which category your child lies. If she or he were in the first category, then fair enough. Don't go overboard with the prep. If they were in the second category, the whole thing is pointless anyway."
and that was the point I was disagreeing with. It's not pointless. An "above average" child can succeed without heavy duty prep (and compared to many children I've seen, and on this board, 6 months is minimal!) Which you then agreed with by saying that someone you know got in with no prep. But I suppose that could have been a "very intelligent" child.
I suppose I'm really just taking issue with the word "pointless", but I'm now seeing friends and relatives stressing about tutors for their junior school children, and worrying how to afford one in the current financial climate. I don't want them to think it's "pointless" putting their children forward for the 11+ if they can't be tutored.
-
fm
Dear Percy,
Again, I do not want to discourage anyone from attempting to gain entry for an intelligent child or am against home tutoring. In fact, I have posted on this site the contents of the exam for the last few years precisely to help people who can not afford a tutor so they can be guided as to what is in the exam.
Personally I think an interested parent can do just as good a job as a professional tutor. They aren't governed by the clock and they can spend more than 1 hour a week if needed whereas I have to make every minute count.
I think where we disagree is the definition of average, merely above average (I am now quoting myself), intelligent and very intelligent. I see the full range of children. Above average is anything above 100 IQ but there is a world of difference between an IQ of 100+ , 115+ and 135+.
Yes, the no prep. child was fairly bright (130+) and attending a prep. school which extends the cleverest well beyond national averages during the school day. That child needed no tutoring. I know this because I assessed her 3 months before the exam and said she did not need tutoring.
I have also tutored similarly bright children from good state schools who would probably gain entry without a great deal of preparation but my job is to ensure they gain entry either so they don't end up attending the rather poor comprehensives in my area or so they don't have to pay for private.
I also tutor 115+ children from poor primaries who will require much more intervention.
I shall not tutor only slightly above average children, however, because a) I know they won't gain entry and b) they wouldn't cope when they got there.
While you are modest enough to say your child is not a genius or at the top of his grammar school, I think you'll find he has an IQ significantly above 100.
Again, I do not want to discourage anyone from attempting to gain entry for an intelligent child or am against home tutoring. In fact, I have posted on this site the contents of the exam for the last few years precisely to help people who can not afford a tutor so they can be guided as to what is in the exam.
Personally I think an interested parent can do just as good a job as a professional tutor. They aren't governed by the clock and they can spend more than 1 hour a week if needed whereas I have to make every minute count.
I think where we disagree is the definition of average, merely above average (I am now quoting myself), intelligent and very intelligent. I see the full range of children. Above average is anything above 100 IQ but there is a world of difference between an IQ of 100+ , 115+ and 135+.
Yes, the no prep. child was fairly bright (130+) and attending a prep. school which extends the cleverest well beyond national averages during the school day. That child needed no tutoring. I know this because I assessed her 3 months before the exam and said she did not need tutoring.
I have also tutored similarly bright children from good state schools who would probably gain entry without a great deal of preparation but my job is to ensure they gain entry either so they don't end up attending the rather poor comprehensives in my area or so they don't have to pay for private.
I also tutor 115+ children from poor primaries who will require much more intervention.
I shall not tutor only slightly above average children, however, because a) I know they won't gain entry and b) they wouldn't cope when they got there.
While you are modest enough to say your child is not a genius or at the top of his grammar school, I think you'll find he has an IQ significantly above 100.
11+
Based on my 11+ experience for my son and his friends and colleagues from school and tuition....(and this is just an opinion)
I believe that the AVERAGE state school pupil would not get into a grammar school with 6 months tuition (because of the competition from pupils from independent schools and from those who have been tutored more). Of course there are pupils who get in with 'minimum tuition'. It is hard to define minimum tuition. The poster above suggested that this would be 6 months. I would suggest that 'minimal tuition' is far less then 6 months .....but 6 months would be definitely be on the lower end of the tuition scale - a very large number of candidates will have received tuition (DIY or professional) for a longer period.
Any child who get's in with 6 months tuition would definitely be above average. An average student would probably struggle to get in with anything less then a years tuition (again - an opinion only....stand to be corrected by the likes of Fm who have far more knowledge of the whole process). The child of the poster above is certainly not an average pupil...although the modesty is admirable.
I believe that the AVERAGE state school pupil would not get into a grammar school with 6 months tuition (because of the competition from pupils from independent schools and from those who have been tutored more). Of course there are pupils who get in with 'minimum tuition'. It is hard to define minimum tuition. The poster above suggested that this would be 6 months. I would suggest that 'minimal tuition' is far less then 6 months .....but 6 months would be definitely be on the lower end of the tuition scale - a very large number of candidates will have received tuition (DIY or professional) for a longer period.
Any child who get's in with 6 months tuition would definitely be above average. An average student would probably struggle to get in with anything less then a years tuition (again - an opinion only....stand to be corrected by the likes of Fm who have far more knowledge of the whole process). The child of the poster above is certainly not an average pupil...although the modesty is admirable.
