How to convert from CEM to GL 2018

[Dollydripmat]

Having had experience with CEM for my eldest daughter. Feeling quite vulnerable having not had any experience of GL. I was hoping to do some light preparation for my daughter who's in Y4 at present. Can anyone recommend what VR books to look at ? Will the maths be fairly similar? I'm hoping it won't be so time oriented. Any advice would greatly be received. Thanks Dolly

[Guest55]

WAIT!! We have no idea what the new test will be as it will be bespoke for Bucks - I'd advise waiting until November to buy anything.

Until then, focus on reading and practising times tables.

[Tinkers]

At the moment no one quit knows what GL are going to provide for Bucks.
It's probably best to look at a variety of resources in the mean time.
Everyone else will be in the same boat of not knowing what to expect, except those that don't even know is changing.

[salsa]

These tests are very different as CEM is very time critical. My boys have done both GL (Kent) and CEM (Bexley) and found the insane CEM timings a problem. They both did much better with the GL tests. GL have 8 packs with 4 tests each for English, maths, verbal and non verbal reasoning. They don't provide any test materials for Spatial reasoning, but the CGP Spatial reasoning were very helpful to my youngest son as this book is new. He said he did not find a single type that he had not covered before at home.

I think it is a good move from Bucks to move back to GL as CEM are not "tutor proof" and are very biased towards verbal ability. So, I think that CEM is not that suitable for children who are stronger at subject such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths), as well as anyone who had speech and language problems or dyslexia.

Salsa

[Guest55]

The old GL test was far worse for those with a Maths/Science strength - many qualified with very weak maths.

I hope GL have something new in mind - I don't think they would have got the contract without that.

[salsa]

I am sure they will have improved it as they made the GL test for Kent harder and more comprehensive. Not perfect, but fairer than CEM in my opinion. Some of the super selectives in Kent were threatening with doing their own test, so GL introduced an English exam and added Spatial reasoning for which they did not provide any familiarisation materials. I do hear, however that in the past they did provide Spatial reasoning material, so those with old stuff may have something to work from. In any case, CGP spatial reasoning did the trick for my son. He was naturally good at both non verbal reasoning and spatial anyway. I couldn't do those to save my life, so I would just leave him to it instead of slowing him down! My husband has the same brain bias and sometimes my son would get some quicker than him! Having said that, doing those under exam pressure is quite another matter.

They reduced the timings on the maths paper and made the questions more difficult. My son didn't find anything in the test he had not covered before. The difference was that they had less than a minute and some of the questions could be quite verbose, so we had to teach him to concentrate on the maths facts. CEM had up to 10 options and by the time you had read the question the time had elapsed. So, he could do the questions, but struggled to read all the options. This test did not reflect his true mathematical ability.

Salsa

[Dollydripmat]

Thanks for the advice and your experience Salsa . I'm sure your right G55 I just hope it's not ridiculously time pressured as the current CEM. It's a hideous pressure for children to deal with. Dollyx

[drummer]

I think it is a good move from Bucks to move back to GL as CEM are not "tutor proof" and are very biased towards verbal ability. So, I think that CEM is not that suitable for children who are stronger at subject such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths), as well as anyone who had speech and language problems or dyslexia.
Salsa

I wonder Salsa how familiar you were with the old Bucks test? The old test was much more open to subversion by tutoring/training than the new test - children were routinely trained to within an inch of their lives to recognise which one of 21 question types they were faced with and to then 'deploy' the appropriated strategy they had been drilled in. The CEM is far less susceptible to such 'training'. Of course it can be affected by tutoring but largely because that is the case with everything in education. All things being equal, a child who has access to a good tutor and good exam prep will do better than a child who does not (day to day at school, in their SATs, in their GCSEe etc. etc.)
And as a 'dyslexia' tutor, in my opinion the old test 'discriminated' much more against children with reading/spelling/language impairments. It consisted almost entirely of verbal reasoning which was heavily dependent on good spelling ability. The current CEM test is effectively 1/2 verbal 1/2 maths when you understand that non-verbal is in the realm of maths/logic.

I hope that the Grammar Schools have retained the brief they gave CEM and that the test remains broadly aligned to the curriculum (and doesn't extend past Y5). In the meantime, as Guest55 as said, the best advice is to encourage children to read widely and to work on their times tables - the same advice I have been giving for many years regardless of who was providing the test.

[salsa]

I think it is a good move from Bucks to move back to GL as CEM are not "tutor proof" and are very biased towards verbal ability. So, I think that CEM is not that suitable for children who are stronger at subject such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths), as well as anyone who had speech and language problems or dyslexia.
Salsa

I wonder Salsa how familiar you were with the old Bucks test? The old test was much more open to subversion by tutoring/training than the new test - children were routinely trained to within an inch of their lives to recognise which one of 21 question types they were faced with and to then 'deploy' the appropriated strategy they had been drilled in. The CEM is far less susceptible to such 'training'. Of course it can be affected by tutoring but largely because that is the case with everything in education. All things being equal, a child who has access to a good tutor and good exam prep will do better than a child who does not (day to day at school, in their SATs, in their GCSEe etc. etc.)
And as a 'dyslexia' tutor, in my opinion the old test 'discriminated' much more against children with reading/spelling/language impairments. It consisted almost entirely of verbal reasoning which was heavily dependent on good spelling ability. The current CEM test is effectively 1/2 verbal 1/2 maths when you understand that non-verbal is in the realm of maths/logic.

I hope that the Grammar Schools have retained the brief they gave CEM and that the test remains broadly aligned to the curriculum (and doesn't extend past Y5). In the meantime, as Guest55 as said, the best advice is to encourage children to read widely and to work on their times tables - the same advice I have been giving for many years regardless of who was providing the test.

I'm not familiar with the Bucks tests. What I do know is that not having materials for CEM puts parents under pressure to cover more types. There is a lot of "CEM" material now and there is more pressure to cover more ground. Moreover, I know of dyslexic children who couldn't cope with it. Even the maths part was very wordy. At least in the Bexley test.
So, people just got to know what type of things the CEM test covered and prepared or over prepared accordingly. This situation favoured those in the know. Those in this forum, for example.

I don't think that having 27 seconds to do a question tests ability or knowledge. You may be very able and knowledgeable, but a slow reader. You may know your maths but be overwhelmed by the sheer speed required. As parents we had to teach strategies such as skipping questions or skim reading. This is just CEM exam technique, nothing to do with knowledge or ability. Moreover, I did ask my youngest if he'd had any types which he had not seen and he said he hadn't. It was time pressured and horrible, but familiar.

At least GL provide familiarisation materials, except for spatial reasoning, the timings are similar and the parent doesn't need to buy materials which may be irrelevant. Most people tutor/familiarise (insert more acceptable euphemism) so, at least we should have the right materials. All of my GL materials came from the library.

The current GL test for Kent covers English, maths, verbal reasoning, non verbal reasoning and spatial reasoning. Children need to pass all individual subjects.

Reading broadly and knowing your tables is good advice, but I'm afraid that depending on the region, a child will need to know a lot more.

Salsa

[rfewing]

So, based on personal experience, the old Bucks GL test really did favour readers over mathematicians.

At this early stage I'm hoping the new GL will be more balanced, with a near 50/50 split. So for my year 4 DS (2018 intake) I am encouraging lots and lots of reading (is there a list of really interesting and exciting books that also have good stretching vocab?)
and basic maths work - number squares, some good logic challenges.
Anyone else got suggestions?... at least until November when hopefully we will have a better idea of the approach.

Perhaps try a few of the CEM questions?

-RF