Does anyone know of any research into factors affecting 11+?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
factors affecting 11+
Have read these last few posts with interest - DS has just taken and passed 11+ (thankfully a comfortable pass). All the way through I wasn't sure how it would pan out - he is a bright child with strengths in maths, science and comprehension, a passion for history and reading fantasy but a v.poor speller. At school for the past 3 years we have been greeted with obvious surprise at how well he's done in the optional SATS, he's quiet in class and I think 'missed'. A reluctant school goer in KS1 I always felt that he was under achieving. Came into his own more in KS2 he had an inspirational male teacher who had a passion for history and PE - heaven for ds) and he discovered reading - beginning with the Harry Potters, Eragon,Eldest, The Cronicles of Narnia, The Hobbit and then 'anything' by Michael Morphurgo... that's when I really felt the penny dropped and we were able to discuss the plot and he asked often very indepth questions.
Son always found NV reasoning 'easy' when I had no idea of an answer -
but the spelling 'element' in the VR proved a sticking point. In the end we just concentrated on these types of questions and it seemed to pay off.
I was surprised when he told me that he'd got the highest 11+ result in his class out performing 'top table' pupils (who if playground gossip is anything to go by have been coached for 'years') I felt he had almost been 'written off' by his teacher at the end of KS1 - he came just about bottom in writing (2C), near the bottom in reading but a high level 3 in maths ...
We knew that he was a bright boy, as a little boy of almost 4 he questioned why his grandma was attempting to weigh 2 bottles of helium by holding them in her arms (1 was half full whilst the other was full) "But Grandma, even compressed helium won't weigh that different!" So not quite sure what went wrong in those early years .. anyway seem to be on track now.
DD is quite different altogether - all the way through nursery/school she's been praised as being 'very bright' - started to read before anyone taught her at 3 and a half and at the end of year 3 gained all 4's in her optional SATS. But conversations take a very different tack - she is very naive and 'young' for her years... we often have to bite our lips when she comes out with some real crackers. Most recent one was last night. After seeing a number of Halloween decorations outside people's houses
we drove past a huge illuminated cross " Oh, that's rather nice - look somebody has put a really big cross on their house!" (We were driving past our local methodist church!)
Out of interest I gave our daughter a Bonds 'placement' test for VR she scored 78% before we've even done any preparation with her - (which we won't do until next Jan) interestingly she didn't like the look of the non-verbal so I've resisted the temptation to 'just see'! But this fits with what other people have said about their 'bright school performers' who sail through VR and find NVR more difficult. We will have to see!
Son always found NV reasoning 'easy' when I had no idea of an answer -
but the spelling 'element' in the VR proved a sticking point. In the end we just concentrated on these types of questions and it seemed to pay off.
I was surprised when he told me that he'd got the highest 11+ result in his class out performing 'top table' pupils (who if playground gossip is anything to go by have been coached for 'years') I felt he had almost been 'written off' by his teacher at the end of KS1 - he came just about bottom in writing (2C), near the bottom in reading but a high level 3 in maths ...
We knew that he was a bright boy, as a little boy of almost 4 he questioned why his grandma was attempting to weigh 2 bottles of helium by holding them in her arms (1 was half full whilst the other was full) "But Grandma, even compressed helium won't weigh that different!" So not quite sure what went wrong in those early years .. anyway seem to be on track now.
DD is quite different altogether - all the way through nursery/school she's been praised as being 'very bright' - started to read before anyone taught her at 3 and a half and at the end of year 3 gained all 4's in her optional SATS. But conversations take a very different tack - she is very naive and 'young' for her years... we often have to bite our lips when she comes out with some real crackers. Most recent one was last night. After seeing a number of Halloween decorations outside people's houses
we drove past a huge illuminated cross " Oh, that's rather nice - look somebody has put a really big cross on their house!" (We were driving past our local methodist church!)
Out of interest I gave our daughter a Bonds 'placement' test for VR she scored 78% before we've even done any preparation with her - (which we won't do until next Jan) interestingly she didn't like the look of the non-verbal so I've resisted the temptation to 'just see'! But this fits with what other people have said about their 'bright school performers' who sail through VR and find NVR more difficult. We will have to see!
Its very interesting to hear from parents and teachers how they feel about 11+. I have three children. My eldest sat 11+ but didn't pass as there was no preparation what so ever as I had very difficult pregnancy. We did appeal but was not successful. my middle one wanted to sit 11+ too. I got some books and went through with her as I was on maternity. We could never afford tutor. We made it on the waiting list and got in LG. I was concerned how will she be coping as she only got in with 116. They had their CATS last month and she was in top 20% (top 30 out of 150) and I was shocked as one student from her school who scored 132 in 11+ didn't even made it in top100. Also children with 121 in 11+ came between 140-150. Am I reading too much into it? I thought since last year these children stopped preparation i.e. going through NVR, VR and Maths papers. so this was a test where none of them had any tutoring and this was a better indication of the level they are working at.
I read this very interesting thread albeit an old one and thought of several research areas.
Firstly, all research agrees that all children have natural abilities that are waiting to be tapped, When it is watered and taken care of well, the expectation is tat they will deliver, If it is not fully utilised, when it may or may not deliver wht i expected.
There are several stories from the research in Child of out time by Professor Winston and his team. One of them is 2 children on opposite sides of the same street and one started doing very well at school and the other wasn't. The other child has a lot of medical problems and has almost been written off by medical experts. The point is after a while the sick child did overtaook the 'bright child in later years and will likely go on to do well later in life.
The other point is the reserach on children recently broadcated on radio 4. It went back to catch up with adults who were classified as gifted in early years and to see how they have fared. Surprisingly there are quite a few that have not done nearly as well as they thought. This was put down to understanding of 'being able' and 'being prepered to learn' and 'learning how to make effort'.
The last thing is what is called 'cultural resources' in sociology of education. This relate to the first point about the sick chid because what happened was parents were more prepared to support the child in every way. Even extended family were more available notonly because the child is sick but perhaps this is what they would have done anyway.
From experience parents that expect thier children to be succesful AND WORK IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO BRING TIS ABOUT GENERALLY GET SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN. You were convinced so much of your children's ability thet you went to appeal for them. We would have just said, 'you see, next time you learn to work harder'.
Finally it is about the child as wel as parents. I am a primary school teacher and I can tell you that parents that want their children to go to grammar school generally work for it. Remember it is just an hurdle and then we choose different ways to make them jump that hurdle. Yours is a unique situation.
Firstly, all research agrees that all children have natural abilities that are waiting to be tapped, When it is watered and taken care of well, the expectation is tat they will deliver, If it is not fully utilised, when it may or may not deliver wht i expected.
There are several stories from the research in Child of out time by Professor Winston and his team. One of them is 2 children on opposite sides of the same street and one started doing very well at school and the other wasn't. The other child has a lot of medical problems and has almost been written off by medical experts. The point is after a while the sick child did overtaook the 'bright child in later years and will likely go on to do well later in life.
The other point is the reserach on children recently broadcated on radio 4. It went back to catch up with adults who were classified as gifted in early years and to see how they have fared. Surprisingly there are quite a few that have not done nearly as well as they thought. This was put down to understanding of 'being able' and 'being prepered to learn' and 'learning how to make effort'.
The last thing is what is called 'cultural resources' in sociology of education. This relate to the first point about the sick chid because what happened was parents were more prepared to support the child in every way. Even extended family were more available notonly because the child is sick but perhaps this is what they would have done anyway.
From experience parents that expect thier children to be succesful AND WORK IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO BRING TIS ABOUT GENERALLY GET SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN. You were convinced so much of your children's ability thet you went to appeal for them. We would have just said, 'you see, next time you learn to work harder'.
Finally it is about the child as wel as parents. I am a primary school teacher and I can tell you that parents that want their children to go to grammar school generally work for it. Remember it is just an hurdle and then we choose different ways to make them jump that hurdle. Yours is a unique situation.
I can't remember my thought process exactly when considering whether to enter DS for Kent assessment; but my conclusion was that excellent ability children will do well wherever they are at school. It was borderline children who could benefit most from the selective environment; which swung me in favour of enetering DS for the 11+
The whole minefield of 'how' to assess ability and intelligance seems bizarre to me. I had to stop thinking of it as a judgement on DS, as his parents we feel we should work with the school to help DS achieve whatever his skills or ability. In work I often see ability and success do not go hand in hand; and my hubby (one of the most intelligent people I know) always did terrible in exam environments, but he loves projects and research so thrives in a research environment. Go figure!
The whole minefield of 'how' to assess ability and intelligance seems bizarre to me. I had to stop thinking of it as a judgement on DS, as his parents we feel we should work with the school to help DS achieve whatever his skills or ability. In work I often see ability and success do not go hand in hand; and my hubby (one of the most intelligent people I know) always did terrible in exam environments, but he loves projects and research so thrives in a research environment. Go figure!
In reply to Hmaq's comment:
We would have just said, 'you see, next time you learn to work harder'.
I would have been quite prepared to take that view, had the alternative school been adequate. We have no choice in our town. if the children do not get into the Grammar school, the only alternative is the local secondary modern which has just come out of special measures. Although it has now been deemed satisfactory, the Ofsted report commented on the fact that particularly in English, children seem to "go backwards" in KS3. I just cannot accept that someone who achieves straight level 5as in their KS2 Sats should end up being judged at less than that in Y9 and attain fewer than 5 A*-C grades at GCSE.
Any attempt to attend the nearest comprehensive school seems to be stymied at the moment.
I am not looking for excuses for my children, just trying to understand why they don't pass this exam, when every other indicator ( exam or otherwise) seems to suggest the contrary. The stories of their success are not anecdotal - my DH and I are both GS teachers in the schools our children attend. Therefore we can see how successful they are in relation to their peers.
Bouga
We would have just said, 'you see, next time you learn to work harder'.
I would have been quite prepared to take that view, had the alternative school been adequate. We have no choice in our town. if the children do not get into the Grammar school, the only alternative is the local secondary modern which has just come out of special measures. Although it has now been deemed satisfactory, the Ofsted report commented on the fact that particularly in English, children seem to "go backwards" in KS3. I just cannot accept that someone who achieves straight level 5as in their KS2 Sats should end up being judged at less than that in Y9 and attain fewer than 5 A*-C grades at GCSE.
Any attempt to attend the nearest comprehensive school seems to be stymied at the moment.
I am not looking for excuses for my children, just trying to understand why they don't pass this exam, when every other indicator ( exam or otherwise) seems to suggest the contrary. The stories of their success are not anecdotal - my DH and I are both GS teachers in the schools our children attend. Therefore we can see how successful they are in relation to their peers.
Bouga
-
Bewildered
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Berkshire
I understand that most of the tests are set by the NFER.
If one body sets the tests it does seem strange that a child's results can vary considerably. By way of example children who recently sat the Hershall/Langley and Slough Grammar exams may have scored well on vr and/or nvr on one set of papers and the reverse on others, some of the results differed considerably.
The said tests took place within a few days of each other.
If the tests were as reliable as they are portrayed surely the scores should have been consistent..
There may be a number of reasons for these variations however to argue that they are a reliable indicator is open to debate.
I understand that in Bucks they have two papers, both VR, sat on different days, and the highest score is then selected, surely this is preferable to the current lottery where capable children often miss out.
If one body sets the tests it does seem strange that a child's results can vary considerably. By way of example children who recently sat the Hershall/Langley and Slough Grammar exams may have scored well on vr and/or nvr on one set of papers and the reverse on others, some of the results differed considerably.
The said tests took place within a few days of each other.
If the tests were as reliable as they are portrayed surely the scores should have been consistent..
There may be a number of reasons for these variations however to argue that they are a reliable indicator is open to debate.
I understand that in Bucks they have two papers, both VR, sat on different days, and the highest score is then selected, surely this is preferable to the current lottery where capable children often miss out.
The University of Durham CEM have done quite a lot of Research on the reliability of tests.
The main standard statistical measure of internal consistency (reliability) is Cronbach's Alpha. You will see this quoted quite a lot regarding test papers. Essentially, the closer the 1 the more more reliable the test.
If you do a google search for Cronbach's Alpha you should find some quite interesting reference information.
You might also find the following papers of interest:-
http://www.iaea2008.cambridgeassessment ... errell.pdf
http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/4352/ ... 352uab.pdf
The main standard statistical measure of internal consistency (reliability) is Cronbach's Alpha. You will see this quoted quite a lot regarding test papers. Essentially, the closer the 1 the more more reliable the test.
If you do a google search for Cronbach's Alpha you should find some quite interesting reference information.
You might also find the following papers of interest:-
http://www.iaea2008.cambridgeassessment ... errell.pdf
http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/doc/4352/ ... 352uab.pdf
