Inner vs eastern vs southern

[serendippyty]

Cleverer? Or just more people sitting for a similar number of places?

[Okanagan]

Your argument is like saying People in Coventy took the Edexel "A" level and got a B. People in Stratford got a on "A". You cannot say the people who sat the Stratford exam are cleverer. Of course they are.

The intake of Southern Warwickshire are clearly clever than the Eastern area. If the pass mark was set at 335. KES would be full.
LSS would not manage to fill 84 places. It is simple as that.

"My argument" is not that the standard required to get a place in the South isn't higher (which it is) but that your earlier statement

Southern area = .... and dare I say brighter children?

has no evidence to back it up. Yes the score required for the Eastern area is lower (inevitably, as it reflects the ratio of places:population) - but it doesn't follow that as a whole the Southern area has brighter children. If the places available were proportionate to the populations, the scores required would almost certainly be very similar.

[play]

Why is it offensive. We all know there are quite a few children in the Eastern area with high marks. Well done to them.
We also know there are a lot with "low" marks that would not get a look in in the Southern area. Isn't that a fact?
Well done to them as well.

Can we not state the truth, without getting upset?

Are league tables insulting, as they show one school have children that perform better than others?

[play]

Okanagan

I was referring to the intake and not all children in the South.

I think we can safely say the average intake in the South are brighter than the East!

[Okanagan]

I was referring to the intake and not all children in the South.

That's not how it read - especially as you followed up by telling us that was down to

a higher socio-economic group, parents more educated and better prepared children. Better work ethic. Children are told "when you go to University and not if". Better "gene pool".

Actually I'm not sure that those completely correlate - of all the people I know most of those with the least work ethic would consider themsleves to be "a higher socio-economic group" (all those still staying at home although all the kids are at school or have even left home mothers who have no intention of ever working again as they're quite happy with their lifestyle, thank you very much - I bet we all know some of those!).

I think we can safely say the average intake in the South are brighter than the East!

Or perhaps just better prepared?

In your own words

I don't think 11+ marks are an indication of natural intelligence, except for the odd few, - perhap some with very high marks. I think they are an indication of how prepared the child was. It is ultimately all about extra work

Perhaps it's self fulfilling - higher marks in the south, so more people feel the need to tutor, leading to higher marks..... While over in the inner East the competition isn't as hot so parents feel less pressure to jump on the tutoring bandwagon - if 300 is enough for a place, why shell out for tutoring for a higher score when a place is a place at the end of the day? And as all that tutoring over in the South raises marks there it will make average Eastern score needed fall since they're all standardised together. Follow this logic and the contrast in the provision of places between the two areas will in itself only add to the discrepency in marks over time.

[ginx]

Thanks, Okanagan.

[play]

Ginx, please do not read, so you cannot be offended.




I am sure we were discussing 11+ results and places and not the entire South or Eastern region. I think this was obvious to anyone. This is an 11+ forum and not entire area forum. Read the context of my comments and not what you want to read. Stratford is a higher socio-economic area than Rugby. Check official data.

As far as I am concerned, tutoring is tutoring whether the parent does it, a private tutor does it or a school does it. You do not need to pay for it. I certainly didn't. Any half intelligent parent can tutor for the 11+. It's only the standard of an 11 year old. How hard is it? It's not even GCSE/O level standard. If they cannot then they are probably uneducated (or am I allowed to say "thick"?).

I have not seen any evidence that the Southern area "tutors" any more than the Eastern. Remember CEM claim their 11+ is tutor proof, so your logic fails!

I do not think 11+ is a direct indicator of natural ability. But I believe it has some bearing on how clever the children are.
Natural ability and clever are not the same!

My logic:
Is a child who gets 3 A grades in A levels, clever than a person who gets 3C grades?
If so, than a child scoring 340 is clever than one scoring 300.
Children at KES have higher average scores than LSS.
On average KES boys are at a higher standard and cleverer than LSS boys.
Southern intake is a higher standard the Eastern intake.
KES A levels results are better than LSS
KES EB results are better than LSS
KES average grade GSCE is better than LSS.
LSS only beats KES in GCSE points per pupil because of the sheer number of GCSEs they take.

My son goes to LSS! This does not mean I cannot be honest.

The next think you will say is that Oxford University students are not cleverer than Luton University students!
Let's agree to disagree, before Ginx complains and gets me banned for telling the truth! (She's not reading!)

[Fatnorville]

Thanks for that. I think you have gone into great detail in explaining what others may merelly dismiss as basic macroeconomic supply vs. demand theory, but not only that but taken the theory further by adding socio economic factors.

I personally don't care about the stats. You lose the context of the individual.

I am not too fussed that we live in the eastern area which "statistically" has "less clever" children.

What matters more to me is that I have given my son an opportunity AND I have every faith that he will embrace that opportunity by challenging, embracing and improving what is presented before him.

I am pretty happy with that result.

[phoenix45]

I truly believe this eastern vs southern tussle is unnecessary. My reasons are simple:

1) LSS or KES, interms of admissions they are not hugely apart - if you place this in context the many regions across the country has vast differentials in cut-offs that this difference pales in comparison

2) I believe parents as well as kids know that they are up against a slightly higher cutoff in the southern for a GS place, so they are perhaps better prepared

3) I for one do not believe tutoring can make a huge difference in scores, the evidence is pretty clear if you look across the country - the southeast of england is littered with tuition centres, but the cut-offs at some of the best GSs there are comparable to KES for instance

So the bottom line for me is that a) naturally talented kids get much better scores and the better prepared above-average student also moves on to a GS. Its that simple. I bet if you raise the bar at LSS (just like what happens in several regions in the southeast of england), east will be tough to beat! -

- i dont believe in the socio-economic correlation much - we make our own realities, and any kid could reach for the stars despite where they come from as long as they have the desire to succeed and the challenge to go with it..

[hopeful]

well said phoenix45