Go to navigation
It is currently Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:14 am
Posts: 44
trudie wrote:
This is not learning. This is not education.

kenyancowgirl wrote:
No, you are correct, it isn't...it's not learning or education but a test to try and separate out one group of children from another. Whatever test is used has some inherent unfairness in it - CEM has been absolutely slated on other areas if this forum for being completely tutorable for a variety of reasons - you can't both be right - or, in fact can you?!! ..... The system is inherently flawed, so worrying about which test provider is less flawed becomes slightly pointless. If a parent's child is successful, they are more likely to feel the test has done its job, if unsuccessful, or only successful on review/appeal (as you have in Bucks) they can see the flaws more clearly. The same arguments were had when CEM was used.


Apologies, this thread has been somewhat hijacked, and has become a comparison between GL and CEM...!

I agree that "....worrying about which test provider is less flawed becomes slightly pointless..." However, I do want to say that I've DIY'd for both the CEM and the GL test, and I disagree that with the idea that there is no educational merit in doing so. In fact, if the only objective for tutoring was to pass the test - if there no other benefits - then I would not have been able to justify putting either of my children through the process. As I said in my previous post, I feel that tutoring for the English and Maths components of the test has been very useful, and has built a firm foundation in those subjects for Y6 and beyond (especially for the SATs). At least if my child doesn't pass, then they will still have gained confidence and skills in those areas. Incidentally, my eldest, who only passed on selection review, received excellent SAT marks, and this would have meant they would have ended up in the top sets at a non-grammar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:00 pm
Posts: 273
No, the test isn't supposed to educate children but to test them, and yes the system is inherently flawed by taking such a small snapshot of ability.

However, the unfairness of the test seems to me to be increased by using "21 types" of VR questions that seriously disadvantage any children who have not previously had some tuition in how to do these. Further, children do not need to be particularly intelligent in order to grasp how to do those questions, they just need to practice.

GL messed up last year and this year they messed up even more. Were they cheaper than CEM?

Excuse me while I go off to help my kids with their coding homework.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:57 am
Posts: 438
I have to agree with you on that Deb70. Our daughter found the sample GL papers quite easy in terms of content, it was always going to come down to practice, in terms of finishing them within a certain amount of time. The code questions did seem a little pointless, but luckily she found them easy, required no ‘instruction’, and was able to whizz through them quicker than we ever could. Perhaps they do require a little ‘logic’, which is what they are trying to assess after all, but the sections on SPag and those questions that require more advanced vocabulary, are certainly topics that are very much taught, and built up over time.
Apologies for the sidetrack on the thread, however in the scheme of discussing the limitations of GL, and given the fact that the test is such a mixed bag, this only serves to make parents feel they need to fork out thousands on extra tuition, which is what most parents around here certainly have done. And now they are worried that a few missed seconds in the test, could put their child below the required mark, because it was always going to be borderline anyway. It will expose them to academic scrutiny they just don’t want. Because they know in a lot of cases, it just won’t hold up.
From a group of over 10 children I know who have sat the test at different schools, only one child has strong data that could stand them in good stead at appeal. With mediocre CAT scores and other standardised data that was less than what they had hoped, they are unsurprisingly very worried about the effects of the mess-up last week. It will be interesting to see how many of the appeals that might stem from this, are actually upheld.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 7:23 am
Posts: 104
kenyancowgirl wrote:
trudie wrote:
This is not learning. This is not education.


No, you are correct, it isn't...it's not learning or education but a test to try and separate out one group of children from another. Whatever test is used has some inherent unfairness in it - CEM has been absolutely slated on other areas if this forum for being completely tutorable for a variety of reasons - you can't both be right - or, in fact can you?!! Alas the entire 11+ system is inherently unfair - and has been discussed as such, time and time again on here. All respected academics would say that making decisions on a child's future at one point in their 10th year is ridiculous, because of the rate of acceleration/plateauing that occurs. Effectively the 11+ system implies that taking children at one point at one moment in time chooses the brightest - if that was the case, every child in Grammar Schools would come out with all 9s - they don't - some crash and burn as they would in other schools - and all children in any other school will come out with rubbish grades - they don't - some come out with all 9s.

The system is inherently flawed, so worrying about which test provider is less flawed becomes slightly pointless. If a parent's child is successful, they are more likely to feel the test has done its job, if unsuccessful, or only successful on review/appeal (as you have in Bucks) they can see the flaws more clearly. The same arguments were had when CEM was used.


Isn't that the main criticism of selective schools and tests? We are part of the problem are we not if we want the best education for our kids but then pay fees/exam tuition centres/online tuition etc to get children into these schools. Many of those who have been hot housed never cope with the demands of grammar school education anyway when the tuition stops-or does it?

When I entered a state grammar school, I had to have an interview too. Nowadays with so many sitting exams this is impossible with only the top Indies having this. I feel sorry for my DS;he's more than able,hasn't been overtutored,has a world of interests and wide general knowledge,very articulate and has a great sense of humour. He's seen kids who have concentrated on passing tests by constant study of maths and English. Nothing wrong with it but if only life was all about the 11+ and maths/English.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:45 pm
Posts: 7013
Quote:
Nowadays with so many sitting exams this is impossible with only the top Indies having this.


It's nothing to do with numbers, in the state system it is not allowed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:57 am
Posts: 438
Quote:
Isn't that the main criticism of selective schools and tests? We are part of the problem are we not if we want the best education for our kids but then pay fees/exam tuition centres/online tuition etc to get children into these schools. Many of those who have been hot housed never cope with the demands of grammar school education anyway when the tuition stops-or does it?


From what I can see with these children, it becomes a self-perpetuating round of never-ending tuition! With parents who either try and convince themselves that their children really did make it there on academic merit, or shamelessly feel that if everyone else is doing it, so should they. So many parents seem to think that passing one test on one day in a child’s 10th year, is the holy grail of academic success, and it’s the accolade above all else. Even when their children have struggled throughout and bombed out with less than glittering grades. And then you hear the cries of it being the school’s fault, not supportive enough..etc etc. With parents in abundance like this, this ridiculous system will one day hopefully implode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:33 am
Posts: 49
I am on the other side of this where my child gets excellent grades throughout school, top sets, great CAT scores but the year long tutoring has not been a positive experience and we will be very much borderline on results day. How is this right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:43 pm
Posts: 128
TNM47 wrote:
I am on the other side of this where my child gets excellent grades throughout school, top sets, great CAT scores but the year long tutoring has not been a positive experience and we will be very much borderline on results day. How is this right?


T'isn't right. At all. Though take comfort that it sounds as though your child who stand up very well in an appeal as likely to have strong support from the school. And even if they don't qualify...a top notch child will do well in life even if they don't go to a grammar. Sounds like your little one has a bright future ahead either way! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:00 pm
Posts: 273
greengekho wrote:
a top notch child will do well in life even if they don't go to a grammar.


I've heard this said a lot.

I don't agree. A "top notch" child? Most children need guidance and to be challenged if they are to fulfil their potential.

If your local non grammars are poor, your child will not do as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:59 pm
Posts: 6308
Yes all children need guidance and help to fill their potential but not every bright child who did not pass the 11+ would have gone on to stellar results even if they were at a gs.

That is the problem with selection in one day, so early. Every parent (on this forum) believes their child is bright and deserving of a place - but in reality, some of them won’t be as bright as their parent believe - that’s just fact - and the affect is multiplied when you look at a whole cohort - Bucks only aims for the top 30% - that absolutely does not mean that the other 70% are doomed if their schools are poor - nor does it mean they do not meet their full potential. The 11+ snapshot means the view of “full potential “ is flawed right from the off - children plateau and excel at different times - some are tutored insanely but then it stops, for eg.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2020