bucks vr not a good test
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
I don't think any more discretion than is already used to its full via appeals is needed. Bucks does everything it possibly can to fill its grammar schools with 'able' Bucks children, via 11+ test, qualification appeals and then allocation appeals.
Tottington, your idea I'm sure has much merit as many children do seem to flourish in yr 7 and above. The problem with tesing later is of course the structure of schools. The 11+ test in yr 6 then children move up to senior school in yr 7. If you didn't test until yr 7 then you would be delaying the start of grammar/upper til yr 8, giving the primary schools another yr group to contend with - much like the first/middle school system that used to exist elsewhere eg. milton keynes. About 5 years ago MK changed to the traditional year of entry to senior schools at yr 7 (it had been yr8), to fit better with the Sats structure and other reasons - but such change costs. I don't think the grammars or uppers would want to lose yr 7s either
Tottington, your idea I'm sure has much merit as many children do seem to flourish in yr 7 and above. The problem with tesing later is of course the structure of schools. The 11+ test in yr 6 then children move up to senior school in yr 7. If you didn't test until yr 7 then you would be delaying the start of grammar/upper til yr 8, giving the primary schools another yr group to contend with - much like the first/middle school system that used to exist elsewhere eg. milton keynes. About 5 years ago MK changed to the traditional year of entry to senior schools at yr 7 (it had been yr8), to fit better with the Sats structure and other reasons - but such change costs. I don't think the grammars or uppers would want to lose yr 7s either
Maybe more was the wrong word to use, Etienne, but in his original post, Tree said:I don't recall anyone wanting to put more emphasis on appeals.
and I took that to mean he felt that the appeal process was more satisfactory than the 11+ exam. I fundamentally disagree with that. There may or may not be valid reasons for having an appeal system, but you’ll never convince me that a subjective appeal system is in any way fairer than an objective test result.i feel we have the answer already in the appeal process this seems alot fairer
wow some really good posts i tend to agree with the way we are moving but i have a few points
firstly I don't agree that you can justify the appropriateness of the bucks vr by quoting grammar school gcse results because:
i think the school atmosphere the expectation the teaching and the general learning environment is at least as and probably more important than the selection process at 11
if you compare grammer schools more fairly with the 30% of children attending comprehensives with similar cat or sats scores these children generally end up with equivalent and in some cases better results at gcse than the grammar schools ( i think part of this is that it is much easier for later developing kids to move up into this top 30 % at comps than move between schools)
Secondly i realise the timing maybe tight but other cc's have a broader set of tests and manage to administer it ok, also you could separate them in time and have curriculum tests at the end of year 5 and cats type tests in november
thirdly i really think it would be positive to encourage more movement between schools during ks3 the advantages of this are:
children that develop later or aren't v good at vr but academically suitable etc get the oppertunity to transfer more easily to grammar school.
Children that are really struggling could be mooted (i like this word sally anne - have used a few times today in conversation) for transfer out of grammer school some of which may appreciate this and some may get the proverbial kick up the you know what and may focus their mind more.
If a suitable child is considering transferring from an upper or a comp to a grammar this may encourage their current school to offer a more challenging/constructive environment and persuade them to stay which would be good for the school
it doesn't have to be necessarily a transfer that is equal in both directions what you could do is build into the system extra capacity at grammar either by allowing funds to move with children or to offer less places in the first place but more by year 9 ie increasing their numbers succesivly at year 7 then 8 then 9 to allow more one way transfer
i would like to thank everyone for their posts it's a great debate
firstly I don't agree that you can justify the appropriateness of the bucks vr by quoting grammar school gcse results because:
i think the school atmosphere the expectation the teaching and the general learning environment is at least as and probably more important than the selection process at 11
if you compare grammer schools more fairly with the 30% of children attending comprehensives with similar cat or sats scores these children generally end up with equivalent and in some cases better results at gcse than the grammar schools ( i think part of this is that it is much easier for later developing kids to move up into this top 30 % at comps than move between schools)
Secondly i realise the timing maybe tight but other cc's have a broader set of tests and manage to administer it ok, also you could separate them in time and have curriculum tests at the end of year 5 and cats type tests in november
thirdly i really think it would be positive to encourage more movement between schools during ks3 the advantages of this are:
children that develop later or aren't v good at vr but academically suitable etc get the oppertunity to transfer more easily to grammar school.
Children that are really struggling could be mooted (i like this word sally anne - have used a few times today in conversation) for transfer out of grammer school some of which may appreciate this and some may get the proverbial kick up the you know what and may focus their mind more.
If a suitable child is considering transferring from an upper or a comp to a grammar this may encourage their current school to offer a more challenging/constructive environment and persuade them to stay which would be good for the school
it doesn't have to be necessarily a transfer that is equal in both directions what you could do is build into the system extra capacity at grammar either by allowing funds to move with children or to offer less places in the first place but more by year 9 ie increasing their numbers succesivly at year 7 then 8 then 9 to allow more one way transfer
i would like to thank everyone for their posts it's a great debate
Other Counties do not have almost every child in every primary school taking the 11 plus.Tree wrote: i realise the timing maybe tight but other cc's have a broader set of tests and manage to administer it ok, also you could separate them in time and have curriculum tests at the end of year 5 and cats type tests in november
The use of several subjects could not be justified within the curriculum. Finding time for the familiarisation of several tests, the sitting of the tests, the marking of the tests and going to appeals would make the process far too long and unmanageable.
Perhaps VR and NVR or VR and Maths?
Patricia
Rob I have changed my mind from my original post about incorporating some appeal type information in the original 11 plus process i mentioned this initially mainly after reading morning glory's nightmare story and thinking (as she seems to) that it would have been v helpful for her to have been able to put forward this information before or indeed instead of the 11+ test and maybe there shoudl be this option anyway for specifc cases like hers.
Also i think that saying if you pass the current test you are probably suitable for GS is not the same as saying that if you fail it you aren't suitable as i think is disadvantages some academically suitable children whose brains just don't get vr like my daughter.
Also i think that saying if you pass the current test you are probably suitable for GS is not the same as saying that if you fail it you aren't suitable as i think is disadvantages some academically suitable children whose brains just don't get vr like my daughter.
patricia would you need familiarisation tests with curriculum tests as these could be based on ks2 tests taken end of year 6 seemingly without any obvious familiarisation currently.
So ks2 type test (maths english possibly science) end of year 5 and vr+nvr in november (i feel like i'm haggling for a rug in an egyptian market)
So ks2 type test (maths english possibly science) end of year 5 and vr+nvr in november (i feel like i'm haggling for a rug in an egyptian market)
I enjoy a good haggle 
Yes you would need to familiarise. Some schools complete optional Ks2 tests others do not. Many independents do not use such tests, perhaps some of the out of county children go to schools who may or may not use such tests.
The test must be fair and consistent to all; therefore every child must go through the same familiarisation process.
Patricia
Yes you would need to familiarise. Some schools complete optional Ks2 tests others do not. Many independents do not use such tests, perhaps some of the out of county children go to schools who may or may not use such tests.
The test must be fair and consistent to all; therefore every child must go through the same familiarisation process.
Patricia
-
Looking for help
- Posts: 3767
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: Berkshire
For what it's worth, my children all sat the Slough consortium exam. The older three were tested in maths, VR and NVR. None of them would have passed had there not been a maths test. My two girls did far better on VR than NVR and my son did better on NVR than VR, but the thing that outweighed a poorer score on reasoning was a very good score on maths.
Slough consortium now operates a test of VR and NVR. My youngest predictably did not pass because there was no maths to balance things out for him. I think that mathematically minded children are left out in the cold by these reasoning tests, even if some maths is tested in them. I would imagine that Bucks grammars are full of writers and philospophers - but a bit short on the engineers and doctors, myself. As will the Slough schools be in the future - I am not suggesting there's anything wrong with this approach, just that it is selecting in a different way.
My youngest is at a good comprehensive (>70% achieving 5 or more A*-C incl maths and English) and is in the top 5 of his year for maths (out of 240). No-one will ever be able to tell me he would have struggled in a grammar school. Therefore, in my humble opinion, these reasoning tests clearly do not always pick out the most able for one reason or another and neither do appeals panels
Slough consortium now operates a test of VR and NVR. My youngest predictably did not pass because there was no maths to balance things out for him. I think that mathematically minded children are left out in the cold by these reasoning tests, even if some maths is tested in them. I would imagine that Bucks grammars are full of writers and philospophers - but a bit short on the engineers and doctors, myself. As will the Slough schools be in the future - I am not suggesting there's anything wrong with this approach, just that it is selecting in a different way.
My youngest is at a good comprehensive (>70% achieving 5 or more A*-C incl maths and English) and is in the top 5 of his year for maths (out of 240). No-one will ever be able to tell me he would have struggled in a grammar school. Therefore, in my humble opinion, these reasoning tests clearly do not always pick out the most able for one reason or another and neither do appeals panels
Patricia : ok but as these tests are based on the curriculum and are going to have to be taken a year later anyway i'm sure this could be fitted in at the end of year five (to be honest i actually like regular curriculum tests i think it gives the kids and parents something to work on and more meanigful measurable targets, but again off topic i feel Etienne watching)
