Durham CEM 11+ - So far so good?

[pippi]

Without the tests/assessments, how does one find how bright is little Flossie?

With the tests, how do you find out how "bright" she is!? If you're saying that, as a really bright child, her opportunities will be as good at an Upper/secondary modern as they would be at a grammar school, then what's the point of selecting in the first place?

[tiffinboys]

From the scores in the entrance tests, what else. The schools need to be a step ahead of tutoring techniques / mediocre tests and should be able to select the ones who are bright from the ones being pushed to become one trick monkeys.

If there are other ways to objectively assess the entrance qualification, than that should also be evaluated. It is no good saying that Flossie with loads of social problems at home be given preference, merely because other Flossies have less of those problems. She as well has to show her credentials at whatever test school undertake, may be perhaps at least to the minimum required. In Bucks for example, 121 rather than being high enough high on rank score order as in super selectives.

Some schools, Nonsuch, for example have now reserved seats for children on fsm. This can be done by all selective schools.

[pippi]

The latest GSHA Newsletter has some commentary on this issue: http://gsha.org.uk/images/GSHANewsletterMay2014.pdf

Pressure on places in oversubscribed schools has spawned an array of online forums devoted to sharing knowledge (and in some cases lack of it) about the process of selection. In many areas there is a thriving coaching industry which exploits the anxiety of parents and uses this to relieve them of large sums of money in exchange for tutoring designed to prepare them [sic] for the 11+ test. There is money to be made selling practice tests and children who have sat tests are sometimes cross examined about the questions that they were asked and the answers that they gave. This has caused concern that children whose parents could not afford coaching were missing out. For more than five years now, some schools in the Midlands have been using the University of Durham CEM Centre tests. These are bespoke tests designed to test candidates’ knowledge and understanding of the KS2 curriculum and the child’s ability to apply this to solve a range of problems rather than their processing speed. Practice booklets are not available and there is a very high correlation, 0.8, between performance in the tests and performance at GCSE. The tests are designed to be immune to the influence of coaching.

From 2015 40% of grammar schools will be using the CEM tests. GSHA is committed to working with providers on the continuing development of tests that are accurate and which do not provide an advantage to those who can afford to pay for tutoring. The analysis of data from Buckinghamshire (a wholly selective area which has recently switched to the CEM Centre tests) will provide us in time with valuable hard data on the large scale impact of the change over time. Potentially, with so many doing the same test, there will be a rich source of data that could help to counteract some of misconceptions about grammar schools

"For more than five years now, some schools in the Midlands have been using the University of Durham CEM Centre tests": I've posted the FSM data from the Warks tests on p4 of this thread, and I can understand why Charlotte Marten is focussing instead on the "very high correlation" between the tests and GCSE results.

And of course "Leading the Way" would not be complete without: "The tests are designed to be immune to the influence of coaching" ....

Maybe someone could someone tweet this claim to: https://twitter.com/ProfCoe

[southbucks3]

These are bespoke tests designed to test candidates’ knowledge and understanding of the KS2 curriculum and the child’s ability to apply this to solve a range of problems rather than their processing speed.

Ok...I am really confused now, what the heck is processing speed if it is not the ability to read 30 questions, assess what they require, and answer them in 10 minutes? Surely the timing would be far more reasonable if processing speed was not in the equation?

Maybe they are confusing processing speed with the ability to process new information?

[pippi]

Good question! I also had problems trying to figure this bit out:

As is often the case with statistics, they can be a bit misleading. The actual number of students [on FSM] with Level 5s in their SATs who either choose not to apply to a grammar school or who apply but do not receive a place is reckoned by GSHA and the DfE to be two hundred students a year; not the very large number that the percentages originally suggested.

I assume she's referring to the Sutton trust report that found in fully selective areas children eligible for FSM and with level 5s at KS2 are much less likely to get a grammar school place than other children with level 5s. But I'm not sure that 200 is the correct figure?

I asked GSHA why they were using these 11+ tests if they are worse than KS2 tests in this context, and got this response:

Research evidence from respected groups such as CEM is that KS 2 tests would disadvantage FSM applicants as they often reflect the quality of the primary school experience [more] than the potential of a child.

So KS2 would disadvantage FSM applicants. But the 11+ tests they actually use disadvantage them even more. And, by the way, CEM are a major supplier of 11+ tests. And they are unable to point to any research evidence...