Tutors seem to have upped the ante

[greengekho]

This year, in my son's school 19 passed. All 19 children had tutoring. My son was number 19 scoring 120.75. I'm now kicking myself that we didn't do more. We did DIY tutoring at home but it was never everyday, he would never let me!!!! This year it was a new test with new sections. No one really knew what to expect, so that really didn't help us. Our HT has said it was the hardest 11+ she had seen in 15 years!

edited - thanks

Oh please don't beat yourself up with 'We should have done more'! This year will have been tough - the unknown is always tricky to deal with. You have a good chance with review, I think (happy to be corrected, disclaimer disclaimer!) that just under 80% of those with a 120+ score last year got through under review.

[Sally-Anne]

I think (happy to be corrected, disclaimer disclaimer!) that just under 80% of those with a 120+ score last year got through under review.

Absolutely correct. Past statistics here: https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum ... 12&t=53850" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Walthams]

Just skimming through the forum and bumped into this thread. 2 and a half hour tuition a week seems to me much more sensible than 1 hour. How could 1 hour of tuition a week possibly be enough to cover English comprehension, SPAG, vr, maths and nvr? I guess that would have to be 15 minutes per subject The tutor would barely have time to start talking about one subject, uuups, 15 min is up, let’s move on to maths now, so here is how we multiply decimals, uups, you didn’t get it? Sorry, time to move on to vr. I think diying takes much more than that and tutors I have heard of do several hours a week to cover everything. What would you possibly imagine the tutor do in 1 hour? Perhaps I do not understand how tutoring works.

They don't have to cover all topics every week though. We DIY'd and I did Maths/NVR one week, then English/Cloze the next. An hour was plenty to cover off a small group of related topics (e.g. area, perimeter and volume in an hour). If he had needed to do two and a half hours every week to cover the material I would have questioned whether he was suitable for grammar to be honest.

2 and a half hour a week would include not only teaching new material I suppose but also going over mistakes in the practice questions/papers your child had done. Theory and practice are two different things and while teaching a new concept might be quick, there will be plenty questions later on that the child will get wrong due to the wording of questions, tricky parts contained in questions, which all need explaining.

[Deb70]

My ds did CEM test in 2016, no tutoring just work with me, and passed with high score. Other DS just took new GL test and scored 118. Once school went back in September other kids were revealing that they'd had astonishing amounts of tuition plus mocks and many taking 4 or 5 transfer tests. These kids seem to have mostly passed. Being able to compare both my DS on the CEM Vs GL, I would say that GL requires more tutoring for both the specific question types, and definitely speed and strategy. Both my DS are equal ability, the one who passed CEM said he doesn't think he would have passed the GL as he would have run out of time.

[greengekho]

My ds did CEM test in 2016, no tutoring just work with me, and passed with high score. Other DS just took new GL test and scored 118. Once school went back in September other kids were revealing that they'd had astonishing amounts of tuition plus mocks and many taking 4 or 5 transfer tests. These kids seem to have mostly passed. Being able to compare both my DS on the CEM Vs GL, I would say that GL requires more tutoring for both the specific question types, and definitely speed and strategy. Both my DS are equal ability, the one who passed CEM said he doesn't think he would have passed the GL as he would have run out of time.

That's so disappointing to hear. Thanks for the honest feedback though. I am aware that I have to take a completely new approach with 2nd son...and was also thinking how first son (who passed CEM easily) would not have faired so well this time round...so your comments (unfortunately) reinforce where I have arrived at in my thoughts. Not to worry - will just have to adjust and march on! *sigh*

[Deb70]

Good luck
We've applied for selection review now, but if I could go back I would have booked him in for some Mock exams over summer, and probably a transfer test in another area before he took the important one.

[Dollydripmat]

My ds did CEM test in 2016, no tutoring just work with me, and passed with high score. Other DS just took new GL test and scored 118. Once school went back in September other kids were revealing that they'd had astonishing amounts of tuition plus mocks and many taking 4 or 5 transfer tests. These kids seem to have mostly passed. Being able to compare both my DS on the CEM Vs GL, I would say that GL requires more tutoring for both the specific question types, and definitely speed and strategy. Both my DS are equal ability, the one who passed CEM said he doesn't think he would have passed the GL as he would have run out of time.

That's so disappointing to hear. Thanks for the honest feedback though. I am aware that I have to take a completely new approach with 2nd son...and was also thinking how first son (who passed CEM easily) would not have faired so well this time round...so your comments (unfortunately) reinforce where I have arrived at in my thoughts. Not to worry - will just have to adjust and march on! *sigh*

Interestingly I don’t have the same experience. DD1 sat CEM and I thought the timing was brutal . DD2 found this new GL test fine as most of it followed the curriculum and the timings she said were fine. She was able to finish and check her answers, whereas DD1 didn’t always complete the sections on the CEM. Just my opinion, Dolly xx

[Deb70]

Followed curriculum??!
Maybe the maths did, but they certainly don't teach those VR and NVR question types at school. Seriously, if anyone sends their child in without some serious practice in those reasoning questions, they are condemning them to failure. Not only that, they need a strategy. With CEM it was more "tutor proof". They could go in with little or no tuition and as long as they were good at maths and well-read they would be ok.

[Dollydripmat]

Followed curriculum??!
Maybe the maths did, but they certainly don't teach those VR and NVR question types at school. Seriously, if anyone sends their child in without some serious practice in those reasoning questions, they are condemning them to failure. Not only that, they need a strategy. With CEM it was more "tutor proof". They could go in with little or no tuition and as long as they were good at maths and well-read they would be ok.

Yup it’s was reported that it would be more in line with the curriculum, comprehension, spag , yes of course the VR codes , question types are not taught at school , but this used to be part of the old GL test that was deemed quite easy to teach and grasp, there are plenty of books on them , NVR of course isn’t taught at school , I do think some are either good it or not but they can improve , but this part is no different from CEM. Personally I’m glad to get rid of CEM , I didn’t think it as tutor proof at all. Since the introduction of CEM we have had an army of tourists taking the test as many other counties were using it as a practice test, which would push up the standard of cohort, hence making it difficult for a Bucks child to qualify. The answer was to move the test date to avoid this , but it has never been successful. It’s now so competitive in Bucks it’s likely Bucks parents are now doing Y4 prep, Y5, mocks and summer courses, to compete with the tourists from the super selectives. Dolly

[Deb70]

I think the parts that did follow the curriculum were easier than CEM, but the GL question bank reasoning types made it very biased in favour of tutored children. I think the GL assesses speed and strategy, whereas the CEM just selected bright kids.