article in Bucks Free Press

[Guest55]

I expect they relish it! The LEA resent the loss of control that came with the almost wholesale conversion to academies last year, but this is one headache they'll be glad to be rid of.

Evidence?

The LA is not against Academies at all - it never told schools what to do - exactly what control has it surrendered?

BCC administers the test not the LA ...

[anotherdad]

It's a very clear message I have inferred from comments made in various meetings I attend as part of my job.

[pippi]

If anything, a change to a paper based on the three core curriculum subjects would be easier to tutor for, and it would be schools themselves who would be doing the tutoring, just as they hothouse the children for SATs at present.

At least under the current system Heads are required to sign a declaration that they have not tutored the children for the 11+; if curriculum based tests were introduced it would obviously be impossible to extract such a declaration from them.

Ultimately there is no such thing as a "tutor proof test", as has been demonstrated in Birmingham and Warks with the introduction of the so-called tutor-proof Durham CEM test. If anything, tutoring has become bigger business up there than before.

At least with a curriculum based test it could be argued that all the preparation would be of some intrinsic benefit to the children doing it. Using VR and "banning" preparation by schools just means you test children entirely on what they've been taught at home surely? Why is that preferable?

[Jeepers]

Using VR and "banning" preparation by schools just means you test children entirely on what they've been taught at home surely? Why is that preferable.

Hope you don't mind me asking, but every time I read something like this I wonder when and why the ban on preparation came in? I clearly remember in my Bucks primary school having VR lessons from the start of juniors...we were all given VR workbooks in various colours with a big picture of a pencil on the front and you would work your way through them at your own pace (it became a bit like reading books, so there was definite peer pressure to get onto the next colour and not be left behind). Of course that was before the dawn of time so I appreciate things have changed now; but if anyone does know I would be interested.

[Marylou]

Review likely in June. I knew I'd read it somewhere...

From MINUTES OF THE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMISSIONING COMMITTEE HELD ON
TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2011:

http://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/Publish ... es.doc.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Member then referred to the recent Cabinet Member for Education decision titled ‘The
Use of the Well-Being Powers in Co-ordinated Admissions Arrangements’. He
commented that the Council has no legal duty to maintain its role in relation to the
academic selection process (11 +). He said that Members had not looked at the process
or outcome at all and said that the costs to the Council were significant. He said that he
was not asking that the policy on 11+ be reviewed but the process be reviewed in
relation to how the test was administered and what the outcomes were. The recent
decision lasts 2 years and he said that the issue should be put on the work programme
for the issue to be considered in time for options to be considered. Another Member
supported this suggestion and highlighted that with Academies having the ability to
choose their own method of testing it was quite probable that the selection scheme as it
stands may die a natural death. Another Member further commented that he did not
believe it was in the best interest of the Council to proceed with paying for the testing if
the Council was no longer the admissions authority for Academies. He said that the
duties should be looked at in depth and that the Council should consult with Academies
and upper schools. The Chairman said that due to the state of flux with Academies it would not be sensible
to start a review at the moment and suggested looking again at this suggestion in June
2012 by which time the Council would have a better idea of the number of Academies
and see the flavour of where Academies are going.

[Sally-Anne]

At least with a curriculum based test it could be argued that all the preparation would be of some intrinsic benefit to the children doing it. Using VR and "banning" preparation by schools just means you test children entirely on what they've been taught at home surely? Why is that preferable?

I did not say it was preferable, Pippi. I simply stated the original rationale behind the Bucks test, which is that the VR is supposed to test innate ability, rather than prior learning.

I think everyone acknowledges that that is not the case, and BCC themselves often refer in their various documents about the test to the research by Bunting & Mooney in 2001 which demonstrated that even small amounts of tutoring improved results by a small margin, and coaching for a period of 6 months improved results significantly.