lincs results 14/10/06

[DT100]

Hello Ian,

I can understand what you are saying and sympathise with you. I am pretty sure that if my daughter, who started at grammar school this year ,had sat a NVR paper she may not have passed. If your child is good at VR and maybe not as good at NVR then it must be frustating to have the goal posts moved.
Having said that, the change this year actually benefited my son who is much stronger on non verbal questions. I consider myself very fortunate indeed.

The information at our school about the NVR was not made available till the end of July, a few days prior to school holidays. The practice paper was not sat until three days prior to the actual test. We were advised not to coach our children. Very few children have passed this year. But it has to be said that my son's primary school is not very high achieving and I get the impression that a lot of parents do not seem to have very high aspirations for their children. I believe most other schools in the area coach for the eleven plus to some extent. I also think that the school were actually following the guidelines given to them by the grammar school, but it is an unfair playing field when other schools do not.

I would advise you to go to the appeals section of this website. You will find lots of excellent advice and tips there. Do not give up. Wishing you the best of luck.
Deb

[NEWBIE]

My experience mirrors that of Deb – see last post. Our school in South Lincs certainly only gave the pupils one familiarisation paper, as per the grammar’s guidelines. This was done in September. However, the NVR criteria has been in the public domain for many months so I guess it has always been a case of self-help regarding further development of the necessary skills – hence this site! If Ian’s school would normally coach their pupils in respect of the 11+ then, from the postings here, I would suggest that they are the exception rather than the rule. As such, his candidates might be considered as very lucky. I for one would have welcomed much more of an involved attitude from our son’s primary school in respect of all matters relating to the 11+.
Sandra

[Guest]

Many thanks for replies so far received on this subject. I understand the view that pupils should not be coached for the test but as we all know the reality is very different.
Having spoken to people at the local grammar school, they feel that the previous system was biased towards those with an aptitude for VR and that the new process will (off the record) really sharpen the intake.
I wiil be most interested to see the KS4 results for these students in 5years time and should they not produce the huge leap forward which the school expects, I think that governing bodies will be under huge pressure to review the test procedure at KS2( i.e why fix what wasn't broken in the first place)
I think that had we as parents been given proper notice (i.e.more than the 4 months that was given (including the summer holidays) then we could have prepared our children accordingly- you see, a grammar school is a academic institution and rightly so- but amongst the high flyers and natural academics there a many children who one would deem borderlines.These are the children who strive hard at school to pass their 11 plus not just because it's there, but because they really, really want to go to a grammar- for some, the alternatives are less than palatable. These are the children whose local grammar will now be just a school to walk past or be somewhere to which many of their friends go.These are the children who add much colour and vitality to their school by virtue of their willingness to give their all to their studies.These are the children who the system has let down so badly by denying them a place.I will place on this forum my findings as I trawl through the information but I feel sure that those who have not qualified will by and large have not done so by virtue of the non VR test and not the VR paper. This is what I find so hard to take - had they had a decent amount of time to prepare then the results may have been so different. Those in current Y5 now have an entire year to prepare for this change- this years children have been denyed a right to the same opportunity to learn.

[NEWBIE]

But surely this year's intake were operating on a level playing field regarding having time to prepare. Next year's will certainly have longer but this in no way can prejudice the results from this year. Or, am I missing the point? Apologies if this is the case.
Sandra

[Guest]

But surely this year's intake were operating on a level playing field regarding having time to prepare. Next year's will certainly have longer but this in no way can prejudice the results from this year. Or, am I missing the point? Apologies if this is the case.
Sandra

I feel that the whole point is that this years group have been disadavantaged in comparison with those either side.
A large number of "borderlines" who would normally in all likelihood have passed have been disadvantaged. The desperately sad thing is that the meddling of the consortium may well have blighted the future for these children- we all know how vital a great education is and I have to say that where we live, the alternative to our local grammar is a disciplinary and social nightmare.

[ANDREW THE POET]

I would certainly sympathise in general terms with anyone who has worked hard only to fall short of the mark. In fact, every contributor here cannot help but identify with the position of those left out of the system- it could so easily have been any of us. It's clearly difficult to say this without sounding patronising.
I am assuming that you are a teacher. As such, you clearly have a better insight into the politics of this than many of us here. It would not be too hard to get a breakdown of those marks offered in order to substantiate your beliefs in relation to NVR. My experience, as indicated, was contrary to your own. However, your own experience might be more widely held amongst other teachers and parents.
I don't know where you are, but most here in Spalding opt for The Deepings and the Bourne school as first preference if not going to a grammar school.
A

[Guest]

I am not sure if I am missing something here, but I cannot work out how anyone has been disadvantaged by this year's tests in comparison to other years. The same overall percentage of children will have passed, will they not, as scores are standardised according to the difficulty of the exam as well as age? Yes, there may be children who would have got through all VR tests who missed because they were weak in NVR, but in years gone by there would have been kids who would have got through with an NVR who didn't because it was all VR. The consortium obviously thought it was fairer to have a more "all round" test of ability.

The only kids I can see being disadvantaged are those who did not realise that the system had changed until rather late in the day and therefore had very little time to practise. But the Grammar Schools gave this info out to the primary schools and to anyone else who asked direct back around the beginning of April, I think, so most should have had plenty of time to prepare.

There seemed to be a suggestion that NVR was somehow picking out the brighter kids?? I think most people would take issue with that. Incidentally, one of the Grammar schools told me today that there was a fairly high correlation between VR and NVR scores for most of their candidates.

Sara

[NEWBIE]

I think that the author of this thread (Ian) is simply sounding off in frustration of the fact that some/many of his pupils did not pass. This is perfectly understandable, but adds nothing to the debate over NVR. There is certainly a correlation between NVR Verbal results in the large primary school I work with north of Spalding. It is always tempting to look for reasons as to why there were unexpected ‘failures’. Everyone sat the same exam with the same amount of warning and sample papers. Personally, if a child could not grasp the NVR concepts in five months then I would question his/her suitability for grammar school.
Sorry to sound so hard-nosed here. However, I think that there’s a little bit of mischief-making going on here.
I’m with Sara on this one.
Sandra

[SJ]

Everyone sat the same exam with the same amount of warning and sample papers. Personally, if a child could not grasp the NVR concepts in five months then I would question his/her suitability for grammar school.
Sorry to sound so hard-nosed here. I’m with Sara on this one.
Sandra

I have every sympathy for every parent and pupil that has gone through this process and not received the news that they hoped for, I really do. However, I believe that there are children who find VR easier than NVR and visa versa and therefore was this not the "fairest" way of making that corrolation between the two? Or am I completely missing the point. Without sounding patronising as my son thankfully attained the required standard, I agree that everyone had the same opportunity, but the communication of information from grammar schools within the consortium and the primary schools is so varied that I think this is an area for concern. For example why do some give the score with the letters and other do not. I know this is after the exam, but why are there differences?

Surely the whole issue should be that ANY school should be able to hilite a pupils strengths and weaknesses and have the correct resources and support for that child to achieve in whatever they undertake and therefore for that pupil to achieve their best no matter what school they attend.

Sorry I think I may have gone off the point slightly and I do feel for all those who are now facing an agonising decision without the choice of their chosen grammar school, but don't forget for some children, even if they pass the 11+, a grammar school is not right for them as indviduals.

[Guest]

I think that the author of this thread (Ian) is simply sounding off in frustration of the fact that some/many of his pupils did not pass. This is perfectly understandable, but adds nothing to the debate over NVR. There is certainly a correlation between NVR Verbal results in the large primary school I work with north of Spalding. It is always tempting to look for reasons as to why there were unexpected ‘failures’. Everyone sat the same exam with the same amount of warning and sample papers. Personally, if a child could not grasp the NVR concepts in five months then I would question his/her suitability for grammar school.
Sorry to sound so hard-nosed here. However, I think that there’s a little bit of mischief-making going on here.
I’m with Sara on this one.
Sandra

There is certainly no mischief-making in my comments. I am simply making the point that those children who have just had their results may well have been disadvantaged.I have spoken to parents from a number of surrounding primaries who have concurred that their pass rates are not as expected and that in many cases the pupils passed the VR (i.e. 110+) but failed the NVR.The statement that a childs ability to grasp the NVR concept in 5 months should disbar them from attending a grammar school is definitely not one that I could support- after all, the system of 2 VR papers has worked perfectly adequately in the past- changing it now will certainly not be a passport to grammar schools achieving either GCSE's with no grades below a C (their avowed aspiration) or A levels with no grades below a B. Academic ability is one thing- translating that into quality public examination results is another-with the fantastic learning environment that most grammars provide, "borderlines" at age 11 are as capable as any one else of achieving top grades if , as very many do, they apply themselves to the task and strive to do their best. We must also look at the social and pastoral issues surrounding this change.Most parents to whom I have spoken not only wish to send their children to a grammar because of its academic regime- many see it as a decent place for their children to spend time with a pleasant environment and a less "robust" group of students with whom their child has to interact. I have to say that two parents I have spoken to this morning are seriously considering removing their children from the state sector next year because the local alternative to our grammar school whilst being a good secondary modern academically and is well led, is known to breed a very confrontational and anti-social culture both in and out of the school and they simply do not wish their children to be exposed to such behaviour.