Kent Private schools caught 11+ coaching

[Exams2018]

Grammar schools are impossible to access for those without the means, they could do with some help.

Exactly!

If English and Maths are taught in state schools, test competence those subjects for admission into grammar schools. VR and NVR are being “taught” in many many private schools. Having those subjects in grammar tests makes it all blatantly favouring the rich!

[Tolstoy]

When I was in my state primary many moons ago our half/ termy tests were GL
English, Maths, VR and NVR. Pretty much everyone who was expected to be offered a Grammar place did. There were head recommendations which were accepted ( although not always honest). We were not taught to the test, apparently some children were tutored but this was a recent surprise to me and probably rare. I think if we are going to have State Grammars then State Primaries should do some preparation. The tests also need to be SEN proof. Too much focus on English penalises the very children we need to help with our STEM crises.

[Peter]

Kent can't really make up their minds whether tutoring makes a difference or not. GL says it does in their publications, to a point.

There's a recent statement from KCC in the local press from Scott Bagshaw, Fair Access Officer for Kcc education where he says tutoring makes no difference.

How to stop a school tutoring? Well, in a way they all do as 2 out of the three Kent papers are in school subjects - maths and english.

So the Kent test is a bit more a test of the school than it was before the English was added in?

And how can a school promise not to tutor at all if they teach maths and English?

I was very surprised to read this, as it has never been KCC's official view that tutoring makes no difference. As a result I have contacted Scott Bagshaw who denies ever saying this. Can you please provide details of the Local Press Story where the claim is made.

[mystery]

I paraphrased - not those exact words from Scott Bagshaw but some quotes from him and some quotes about what the council said which in a hasty read I assumed were from him.

Kent and Sussex Courier Friday 31 August 2018

Front page strapline: "Council claims there is no need for coaching and it is trying to engage poorer families"

Page 7 Scott Bagshaw, KCC head of fair access defended the council's position saying it makes "every effort" to ensure it is "the fairest possible assessment of underlying ability" and insisting the council is helping children from lower income families to achieve their potential.

"The council forbids primary schools from coaching children specifically for the test, except by familiarising them with the format with one mock paper.

It said "coaching should not be required" and does not publish guidelines on acceptable preparation "because these might be seen as encouraging preparation which we do not wish to do".

Mr Bagshaw told the Courier ".......................we have reviewed our 11 plus process to reduce any advantage that might be gained from familiarity with selection tests formats. ..................................... we do not believe that tutoring is required to pass the Kent test .......... the council does highlight to schools that staff must not retain or copy materials for single use in earlier years in order to drill children in formats and question types and how to approach them."

It all sounds well and good but on the ground it works out as unfair. If you are on the borderline, the right "coaching" (GL materials) can influence which side of the cut-off score a child sits. And similarly for the superselective cut-off.

Anecdotal - according to one of my children, one child at her school was unfamiliar with the test format and stressed by it on the test morning. All the others had been tutored. He was a very able child from poor background. One of the invigilators explained some thing or other to him during a break. He passed but his score but not by much of a margin and was well exceeded by others with tutoring and maybe less "natural" ability. Maybe if he'd remained stressed on the day he wouldn't have passed.

They are young children, not machines.

At the very least, provide some clear information please KCC that the test is run by GL and how to get hold of some familiarisation papers. GL do some free ones.

But back to the KCC mixed messages - when this "new" test was first brougth in it was advertised as uncoahcabel.

[Peter]

I paraphrased - not those exact words from Scott Bagshaw but some quotes from him and some quotes about what the council said which in a hasty read I assumed were from him.

Kent and Sussex Courier Friday 31 August 2018

Front page strapline: "Council claims there is no need for coaching and it is trying to engage poorer families"

Page 7 Scott Bagshaw, KCC head of fair access defended the council's position saying it makes "every effort" to ensure it is "the fairest possible assessment of underlying ability" and insisting the council is helping children from lower income families to achieve their potential.

"The council forbids primary schools from coaching children specifically for the test, except by familiarising them with the format with one mock paper.

It said "coaching should not be required" and does not publish guidelines on acceptable preparation "because these might be seen as encouraging preparation which we do not wish to do".

Mr Bagshaw told the Courier ".......................we have reviewed our 11 plus process to reduce any advantage that might be gained from familiarity with selection tests formats. ..................................... we do not believe that tutoring is required to pass the Kent test .......... the council does highlight to schools that staff must not retain or copy materials for single use in earlier years in order to drill children in formats and question types and how to approach them."

It all sounds well and good but on the ground it works out as unfair. If you are on the borderline, the right "coaching" (GL materials) can influence which side of the cut-off score a child sits. And similarly for the superselective cut-off.

Anecdotal - according to one of my children, one child at her school was unfamiliar with the test format and stressed by it on the test morning. All the others had been tutored. He was a very able child from poor background. One of the invigilators explained some thing or other to him during a break. He passed but his score but not by much of a margin and was well exceeded by others with tutoring and maybe less "natural" ability. Maybe if he'd remained stressed on the day he wouldn't have passed.

They are young children, not machines.

At the very least, provide some clear information please KCC that the test is run by GL and how to get hold of some familiarisation papers. GL do some free ones.

But back to the KCC mixed messages - when this "new" test was first brougth in it was advertised as uncoahcabel.

That is not a misquote. As is obvious, it is a complete misrepresentation of what was written. For information, KCC has never claimed the 'new' Kent test was uncoachable as you assert. I should know. I monitor KCC matters closely, pick up issues and challenge them directly. This assertion was indeed tried out by the small anti grammar school faction, together with some media representation, that also picks holes in KCC, and which I publicly demonstrated was false. If KCC had made such a claim I would have known. It never did, although some critics still try to recycle the canard.

I certainly agree with Mr Bagshaw that the new Test reduces advantage from coaching. This it does by giving greater emphasis to the two curriculum elements of English and maths, although in your previous comment you appear to dismiss this as well.

It may not be relevant to this forum, but I can produce multiple anecdotes about extreme distress caused to children not getting into the non-selective school of their choice.

The reason I have picked up on this issue is that attributing false statements to council officers, as distinct from politicians, is that it can put them in a very difficult position professionally.

[mystery]

I was working quickly from memory.

I can't remember exactly what KCC politicians said in the local press when the new test was being developed and put out to tender - I don't have the time to dig out old newspaper articles from the time and it's probably hard to do so - but when the new test was being mooted there were KCC councillors quoted in local papers about the improvements in the test -- I can't remember the exact phrases but the gist was that it much less coachable than the old test.

In reality, it's not much different (in terms of question types in maths, VR and NVR) apart from much shorter and English and some spatial reasoning has been added in and there's no longer the blurb in the annual admissions booklets which refers to the fact that GL publishes some familiarisation papers.

I am just trying to point out that there could be some other ways of doing things which could even out some of the unevennesses between the prepared and the less-well prepared - but it's never going to be perfect.

I felt bad by child number 4 going through it that we knew the ropes with the GL familiarisation papers at home and that there were others who could ill afford it buying the wrong materials / wrong tutors and others who had no clue at all.

Sorry about the misquote - certainly not intentional or part of any campaign.

[Sparklecat]

It's interesting. I have a memory of KCC saying they wanted to make the test un-tutorable. If they didn't actually say those words, somewhere along the line they decided to allow that impression to arise, or not to challenge that impression. Right now, most children are coached by parents or tutored, in the belief that everyone else does it. Allowing schools to teach to the test would begin to challenge the need for a tutoring industry.

[mitasol]

I paraphrased - not those exact words from Scott Bagshaw but some quotes from him and some quotes about what the council said which in a hasty read I assumed were from him.

Kent and Sussex Courier Friday 31 August 2018

Front page strapline: "Council claims there is no need for coaching and it is trying to engage poorer families"

Page 7 Scott Bagshaw, KCC head of fair access defended the council's position saying it makes "every effort" to ensure it is "the fairest possible assessment of underlying ability" and insisting the council is helping children from lower income families to achieve their potential.

"The council forbids primary schools from coaching children specifically for the test, except by familiarising them with the format with one mock paper.

It said "coaching should not be required" and does not publish guidelines on acceptable preparation "because these might be seen as encouraging preparation which we do not wish to do".

Mr Bagshaw told the Courier ".......................we have reviewed our 11 plus process to reduce any advantage that might be gained from familiarity with selection tests formats. ..................................... we do not believe that tutoring is required to pass the Kent test .......... the council does highlight to schools that staff must not retain or copy materials for single use in earlier years in order to drill children in formats and question types and how to approach them."

It all sounds well and good but on the ground it works out as unfair. If you are on the borderline, the right "coaching" (GL materials) can influence which side of the cut-off score a child sits. And similarly for the superselective cut-off.

Anecdotal - according to one of my children, one child at her school was unfamiliar with the test format and stressed by it on the test morning. All the others had been tutored. He was a very able child from poor background. One of the invigilators explained some thing or other to him during a break. He passed but his score but not by much of a margin and was well exceeded by others with tutoring and maybe less "natural" ability. Maybe if he'd remained stressed on the day he wouldn't have passed.

They are young children, not machines.

At the very least, provide some clear information please KCC that the test is run by GL and how to get hold of some familiarisation papers. GL do some free ones.

But back to the KCC mixed messages - when this "new" test was first brougth in it was advertised as uncoahcabel.

That is not a misquote. As is obvious, it is a complete misrepresentation of what was written. For information, KCC has never claimed the 'new' Kent test was uncoachable as you assert. I should know. I monitor KCC matters closely, pick up issues and challenge them directly. This assertion was indeed tried out by the small anti grammar school faction, together with some media representation, that also picks holes in KCC, and which I publicly demonstrated was false. If KCC had made such a claim I would have known. It never did, although some critics still try to recycle the canard.

I certainly agree with Mr Bagshaw that the new Test reduces advantage from coaching. This it does by giving greater emphasis to the two curriculum elements of English and maths, although in your previous comment you appear to dismiss this as well.

It may not be relevant to this forum, but I can produce multiple anecdotes about extreme distress caused to children not getting into the non-selective school of their choice.

The reason I have picked up on this issue is that attributing false statements to council officers, as distinct from politicians, is that it can put them in a very difficult position professionally.

Gosh - You must work very closely with the LA and Scott Bagshaw to be so offended on his behalf. My recollection is that it is only a few years since the publishers stopped claiming that their test are tutorproof. It is hardly surprising if people conflate the test giver with the test provider even after they stopped making such claims.

[mystery]

Yes, very much my impression too. Similar to the spiel in Bucks on introduction of CEM slightly earlier.

Found it in one. Cllr Mike Whiting, 2013 "take away the coachability factor".

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/ ... -s-a54838/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and yes, I appreciate that the Cllr Whiting is /was a member, a political role, and Scott Bagshaw is an officer, a neutral person paid to put national and local policy into action etc, but to the general public reading news articles it's all "the council" and saying coaching isn't needed is not the same as saying it makes no difference whatsoever but some people might construe it that way.

Mitasol, like you, my recall is that CEM did eventually stop claiming this tutor-proof thing in the papers (or was it Bucks that claimed it not CEM - again I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure CEM had a top guy who pretty much implied this at the time they were trying to win business over from GL). But I don't think GL has ever claimed this have they? They sell books on "how to do verbal reasoning" etc which are good books and which do not claim not to have any impact as their selling point!

Also, if it doesn't make a difference, there's little point in setting rules about it for private schools. So it must make a difference. And you can't stop people doing it at home so, if this is about "Fair Access" then there has to be a different approach.

[Sparklecat]

Just did a quick search of "Kent test tutor proof" at Kentonline and there are a number of articles in 2013 talking about future changes to the test. They tend to contain KM references to making the test tutor proof, with councillors saying it will never be completely tutor proof, but that they want it to be more like what children are taught in school. You can see why parents, with little knowledge of the test, would believe it was being changed in favour of those not tutored.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/ ... -s-a54838/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A revamp of Kent's 11-plus exam is due to be considered by county councillors today.

The changes will see it based more closely on what primary children learn in preparation for their Sats, say county education chiefs.

Kent County Council is to streamline the test to try to counter the widespread coaching culture around the exam, particularly in independent fee-paying prep schools.

Many now accept it favours those who can afford to pay for private tuition, leaving poorer families at a disadvantage.

The authority says the 11-plus is to be based on what pupils learn when taking tests in English and maths in Year 6 - the Sats.

While it is unclear exactly what changes will be made to the exam format, education chiefs say that from 2015 there will be fewer advantages to children who have been privately tutored.

A major change is pupils will take two tests instead of three. These will continue to combine numeracy, literacy and reasoning and there will also be a writing exercise, as there is now.

Cllr Mike Whiting (Con), education cabinet member pictured above right, said the tests would be more closely aligned with what was ordinarily taught to primary school children.

"I want it [the test] to be more closely aligned to the curriculum to take away the coachability factor, which is what everyone is concerned about.

"If everyone has the same opportunity to learn what they need to pass the test, that will help level the playing field."

He acknowledged no test would ever be tutor-proof, but KCC hoped changes, expected to be brought in from 2015, would make the exam less coachable.