11 Plus Exams Forum

Lily-Jane wrote:is anyone planning to include a letter from their DC's 11+ tutor in their appeal?

Hi Lilyjane
Although my tutor has advised me to appeal, I have always been led to understand that the panel will not consider any supporting evidence from a tutor. I don't know if this is the official viewpoint. I worry that it reflects badly on my DDs efforts - tutored yet still below required mark.
Mummog

Sorry - I have just realised that in answering Lilyjane's final point I may have hijacked hotpotpink's thread. Very may apologies if this is the case.

Don't worry - I've moved Lily-Jane's question to this new thread. - Etienne

From the Q&As, B12:

Letters of commendation from relatives, neighbours, club secretaries, sports coaches, private tutors and MPs are unlikely to influence a panel.

It's up to the panel to decide, but I think mummog is right to be cautious. I've never known a panel give any weight to a letter from a private tutor.

Probably not a good idea to announce that your child was tutored ........

From the Q&As:

B27. Some panel questions translated (with acknowledgements to Sally-Anne)

Was your child tutored? = Did she fail despite months of preparation?

mummog wrote:Although my tutor has advised me to appeal, I have always been led to understand that the panel will not consider any supporting evidence from a tutor.

Not quite true - we will consider any evidence put in front of us, unless it is irrelevant.

I don't know if this is the official viewpoint.

There is no official line on it.

I worry that it reflects badly on my DDs efforts - tutored yet still below required mark.

However, whilst there is no official line, you're exactly right. We know that lots of children are tutored, some of us from personal experience, but I have heard said many times by other panel members "They had all that tutoring, but still didn't manage to pass" - it tends to prompt us to look at the academic evidence in great detail - CAT / SATS results, school reports (where we often read between the lines) and the like. Now if these quantitative tests through the normal run of the school year look average, then we'd surmise that the child is just not suitable for a grammar and would fit in better academically at another school.

It may be selective memory on my part, but it often seems to be the children who've had the most intensive tutoring where the parents introduce evidence from their tutor.

Hi Capers

You do need to bear in mind that there are differences between Gloucestershire and Bucks.

This is from the Head teacher's manual for the Bucks 11+:

GL Assessment had, until July 2008, stated that additional exercises (once ‘saturation familiarisation’ has been reached) were likely to have marginal, if any, positive impact on performance. The familiarisation and practice pack provided will give each child saturation familiarisation and after this point, further practice would probably only result in fractional improvements. The specified arrangements ensure that children sitting the tests experience a planned and identical amount of familiarisation and practice.

Until this year that was absolutely the official line. It has softened slightly, with the addition of the following statement:

However, in July 2008, they added:
More recently, research has also been conducted by Bunting & Mooney (2001) into the effects of familiarisation/practice and coaching on verbal and numerical test scores. The scores obtained from the tests which were originally developed for the Northern Ireland transfer procedure in the 1980s, found that coaching for a period of three hours can significantly improve pupils mean test scores. This research also found that sustained coaching over a period of nine months can result in more significant gains in mean test scores; however standardised-score point score gains are not discussed in this study.

Until this year Bucks appeal panels have discounted any mentions of tutoring. Whether they will continue to do so in the light of the new caveat remains to be seen.

However, it is still going to be dangerous territory for parents at an appeal, and I totally agree that, in Bucks, Etienne's advice holds good - it is probably not a good idea to announce that your child was tutored.

Sally-Anne

Until this year Bucks appeal panels have discounted any mentions of tutoring. Whether they will continue to do so in the light of the new caveat remains to be seen.

My gut feeling is that IAPs will still not take account of the "my child hasn't been coached" argument, because they can never be sure who really hasn't been coached.