Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Eleven Plus (11+) in Buckinghamshire (Bucks)

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by Amber »

Once you start digging into things like deprivation index scores (eg DCLG indices) you can see clearer and clearer correlations between poverty and many things, including school attainment. The least poor areas in the UK include some but not all of those with high attainers. You will not generally find places with high deprivation at the top of any kind of desirable league table. I think Gateshead is an anomaly here - it is definitely not affluent on any measure I can find.

I know you admire that HT Rob but really one could argue that the school jolly well ought to have been doing better than it was before, given its socio-economic profile. If you tinker with things like the number of GCSEs taken in one go, and stagger them over longer periods, the result will be that the outcomes will change and statistics based on those outcomes may attract more or different customers. There is a trend for 'super heads' to be helicoptered in to 'rescue' 'failing' schools (this is neoliberalspeak) and they generally use a predictable set of measures to do this...based to an extent on practices in the US aimed at making every pupil feel special and valued, celebrating achievement in many areas (not arguing with these things, but it's a formula) and, often but not always, squeezing staff so hard the pips come out. In areas like Bucks this kind of thing probably plays out better than it might in inner city Glasgow or London, because those with children in upper schools are likely still to be middle class and some of them might be smarting over unwelcome failure to make it into the grammar schools, so there will be a lot of parental interest/pressure to keep attainment high. Parents might be less concerned about the 'creative' measures taken to do this than about the headline A*-C rate of the school.

It is very well known that where there is inequality, educational outcomes suffer for those at the bottom of the pile. The fewer you have at the bottom of a pile, as in Bucks, the more equal the outcomes will be. It is also well known that selection is a proxy for the dominance of the middle class, who generally will do well whatever the system you use, because it has been designed for them.
MollyB
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:42 pm

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by MollyB »

There is of course the high levels of outside school tuition for GCSE's and A'levels in Bucks I hardly know of anyone whose children applying for competitive degrees and top universities who have not used outside tutoring.
I phoned a tutor highly recommended before my daughter sat her A'levels last year and he was fully booked just about squeezed her in ,guess what the children on his list were not upper school children but from popular Grammar schools that could be a reason why Bucks does so well! guess what her grade went up !!!!
daveg
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by daveg »

Amber wrote: It is very well known that where there is inequality, educational outcomes suffer for those at the bottom of the pile. The fewer you have at the bottom of a pile, as in Bucks, the more equal the outcomes will be. It is also well known that selection is a proxy for the dominance of the middle class, who generally will do well whatever the system you use, because it has been designed for them.
It's not that it's designed for them, it's that they're motivated and able to game it. Nothing this side of genuinely random admission over a very large (tens of miles) radius will attack that, because money, motivation and cultural capital trump any other system you can imagine. Unfortunately, even random admission would be a Pyrrhic victory, as the private sector would rub its hands with glee and set up in middle-class neighbourhoods, and the first authority to establish such a scheme would experience an outflow of students into adjacent authorities on a genuinely spectacular scale.
Rob Clark
Posts: 1298
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:59 pm

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by Rob Clark »

So how would such a thing be addressed? I guess it can’t be without some kind of sea change in education…

Oh yes, doubtless it was underperforming before and is now closer to where it should be given that Amersham isn’t Moss Side. But 7 or 8 years ago people within walking distance of the school would do anything to send their DCs elsewhere, even if that meant train and/or bus journeys, whereas now very few, if any, are doing that. Also she isn’t a ‘super head’ in that sense: these usually only stay a year or two, don’t they, and are then helicoptered on to the next school? This HT is about to enter her seventh year, which is longer than I’ve ever stayed in one job :lol:

Don’t the middle classes also do better under a comprehensive system though? To the extent that they are more likely to be able to afford accommodation near the ‘better’ schools, and have the knowledge about the same.
Looking for help
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Location: Berkshire

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by Looking for help »

Well there are no easy answers, hence the problems with schools. I just don't think it is right to pick Bucks as an example of all that's well in the world of education when there are some obvious reasons why Bucks schools are overall doing pretty well in the league tables.

I can't imagine how a totally selective model would work all over the country where there are lots of deprived areas, and children with little hope. I know it used to be the case, but there were , I'm sure some very valid reasons why this was rejected.
Atilla
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by Atilla »

I for one am for comprehensives, but for a very different reason. 11+ testing is based on the bad assumption that there are children who are more academic and ones who are less so. But the reality is that very few people are good in all academic subjects. The people who are absolute geniuses in math are not necessarily good all rounders. The same for science and literacy. So you have a group of children who are very gifted in specific subjects, but who could be denied access to an accelerated class in that subject, thus really holding them back, just because they are not good all rounders and will not qualify for grammer school no matter what the test.

Wouldn't it be better to have all comprehensives, with genuine streaming per subject where someone could be in the top stream for one subject and taught at an accelerated rate, and be in a remedial class in another because that is what is appropriate for them.

I think there should be a change of emphasis from all children must reach at least this level and judging schools based on how many get there to educating the children and allowing them to be uneven and accepting that not everyone is good at everything, but encouraging and helping to develop those areas that they excel in.
Amber
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:59 am

Re: Bucks CC report on impact of coaching on 11+ test

Post by Amber »

In haste and briefly because it is going OT.

daveg - it was designed for them. Baker modelled the first National Curriculum on Victorian subjects to appeal to the middle classes because they vote. In crude terms - every modification to the education system in modern times has been either designed to cater to (Conservative), or designed not to offend (Labour), the middle classes.

Rob - white flag - I am sure she is wonderful, helps old ladies across the road and gives all her money to charity too. :D I wonder how many of the children now at that school would have been in the private sector in more prosperous times. It's great that it works; I just think it works because it is Bucks and because the children there are essentially middle class and their parents wanted them to go to GS.

Under a comprehensive system, as in a totally comprehensive system, attainment is more equal, and those at the bottom and in the middle benefit the most. Bright, middle class children tend to do well in whatever system they are taught. The argument that there would be a postcode lottery is mitigated in a truly (OK, utopian) comprehensive system because all schools are designed to be good. By introducing a huge element of diversity and pitching schools against each other in league tables you encourage parents to think of themselves as clients or customers, shopping around for the best deal for their kids. Diversity tends to lead to inequality, and inequality only works one way - to the benefit of the middle class.

We can never achieve it here though, because of the way our society is structured - we actually quite like inequality, especially when we call it diversity or choice.

LFH - totally agree :D
Post Reply
11 Plus Mocks - Practise the real exam experience - Book Now