Eleven Plus

[MBH]

Totally by chance I caught a Radio4 show last night about the 11 plus exam to get into Grammer schools. Interesting stuff, but I need to replay it to find out WHO THE STUPID WOMAN was that said practicing such questions (i.e. tutoring for those kids who's parents can afford it) will not make it more likely that children will pass

I know from doing the DVP that we did that your mind gets into the way of spotting the codes, tricks, etc, and if you could dedicate time to it then things would get easier (and My Brain would Hurt less)

Anyway the broadcast is at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g0nnx


This morning I had a go at the Sample Exam questions - 10minute timer, and playing it properly I got 14 out of 15

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7773974.stm

Have a look, have a play, and tell me what you think about this being a test of the kids 'brightness' and if you think someone who's seen 3 of them over a year will be just as good as someone who has been tutored in this type of test for 9-12 months. [Sounds like a no-brainer to me - now I must replay the broadcast and find out who that woman is and if she is involved in the training of any sporting people ]

[Looby]

I got 13

I wasted a lot of time trying to solve the code.

[Scurra]

I did that test on the bbc site a few days ago (and did manage to get 15/15...)

I suspect that there are those at both ends of the scale who would pass or fail regardless of how much or little extra tutoring they received; I would guess that there is a relatively small group whose results would be significantly affected by additional tutoring. Not that I'm saying whether I think this is right or wrong - it seems likely to me that many of those receiving the tutoring would have passed anyway; it's impossible to conduct a proper scientific experiment to find out!

There's certainly an element of acclimatisation involved - but if you can't grasp the abstract principle of the "puzzle" then solving X examples beforehand won't necessarily help you solve the one in the test. I'm not sure how much tutoring or experience can help with that.

[giraffe]

Kingsley and Fernando did quite a lot of practise papers and were getting 90% or more right from the start. (100% on some papers) The main things they learnt from doing the papers was exam technique. In Fernando's case how to colour in the tiny boxes on the answer sheet so they can be machine read. Neatness does not come naturally to him! The entrance tests for Kingsley's school included non-verbal reasoning, which I don't think you can be taught. Your brain either works that way or doesn't. The main problem with that paper was that they break the time down. You don't have 45 minutes to do the whole thing, you have 6 minutes for each 12 questions and stop between groups. That means if you are good at one type of question you cannot use the spare time for the ones you find harder. We sat at the kitchen table with a stopwatch and practised techniques for what youu do with the last couple of questions when you have run out of time. (Eliminate the obviously wrong and guess). They both would have got in without all that practise, as they are pretty much top of the class now they are there, but it was a risk I wasn't prepared to take. We didn't pay a tutor, but they did practice.

There was a boy we knew who was bright enough for grammar school, but failed the 11+ (for an independent school, so they let him retake and he got in) His problem was that he was too slow. He thought that guessing an answer was cheating and wouldn't move on and do the easier questions first. He was told that he had got almost everything right that he had attempted, but only got halfway through the paper. A few practise papers would have helped him as his entire problem was exam technique.

[Laura]

I got 14. I had time left to finish the last one, but I couldn't be bothered!!! Think that sums up what would have happened in my 11+!

I was always the one who asked 'but why would we ever need to do this in real life?'. Think I drove most of my teachers mad!!!

[giraffe]

I got 15, although the numerical codes one was harder than anything I've seen in an 11 plus paper, because it didn't give you all the words in code. I wasted a lot of time on that trying to work out what they meant by "the codes are not in the same order as the words" For some reason I thought they meant they had coded the words then shuffled the order of the numbers round!

[Scurra]

I was always the one who asked 'but why would we ever need to do this in real life?'.

Well, now you know - it was so you could do Puzzlebrains

[Laura]

Yes, but there's a point to that. If something's part of a quest, if there's a bigger goal, then there's a point to working it out. If you're faced with a whole page of questions like, 'if a ladder is leaning against a wall at an angle of 63 degrees and the ladder is 12 meters long, how high up the wall is the top of the ladder?', it makes me want to scream WHY????? Who cares? My dad washes the windows - I don't need to know!!!!

[Bunnylump]

I am inclined to agree with you there!

I got 14, but I did think the codes one would have been tricky for an 11 year old!

Neither of my kids took 11+ because the schools around here are all comprehensive. They both went to the local school, both did quite well, both were perfectly happy and have both gone on to university. And that's fine by me!! I probably would have failed this test if I had taken it at 11, tutoring or no tutoring, just because of my slow processing speed ( I think I may have a slight SpLD).

[Looby]

The other thing you need to know about tests like this is if you are penalised for incorrect answers. We had some mid year exams at uni that were multiple choice but you lost 2 points for incorrect answers, so it didn't pay to guess - much better to leave it blank and not score. I still tend to work on those lines.

[giraffe]

There's a Maths test the children do that is like that. It's a national competition, as you go through the questions you get more marks for getting them right, but you lose even more for getting them wrong, so guessing is not advised. K did very well last year, the only one in her year at school to get through to the second round. (And as it's a grammar school they are all bright)

[LAT]

Yes my two have done the Maths Olympiad things too, if that is what you are talking about. My son even won a medal and a book of really hard maths problems one year to his utter disgust! I don't think he has ever opened it since they day he got it.

I think the point about not tutoring, or at least not over-tutoring children is that if they need too much help to get into a school they might then struggle when they are there compared with those who weren't tutored significantly.

Oh and if it's the thing I did the other week I got 15

[giraffe]

Purple rabbit said:

Neither of my kids took 11+ because the schools around here are all comprehensive. They both went to the local school, both did quite well, both were perfectly happy and have both gone on to university

The problem is that is there are grammar schools nearby then the comprehensives aren't really comprehensive, because the bright ones have been filtered off. Fernando is a really competitive child,(you might have noticed a bit of rivalry, particularly if you have been on the runes finished thread lately) who needs competition to make him work to achieve his potential.

The teachers at most grammar schools tend to say that you can tell the ones who have been tutored, because they struggle to keep up, but once they are in they do look after them and try to help them along.

[Bunnylump]

Yes, that's true, I'm sure it would be completely different if we'd had grammar schools here. As it goes, we have 4 pretty good schools in the town (well, and 3 abysmally carp ones) but fortunately we fell in the right catchment area! The one which my kids went to (and the one I went to) used to be the grammar schools, so they're still a pretty high standard. We are lucky, really.

[BassBloke]

Hi everyone.

I've just done the test thingy and, although I did manage 15/15 in 6.5 minutes, I really wonder if an 11 year old would be able to do all of it. So, I'm going to try it out on my kids. Tomorrow, when they are a bit more attentive than they are right now.

My boy is almost 11 and really good at his maths. But, he is VERY slow and he lacks concentration. My guess is he will make a good stab at it and get quite a few right but won't finish in the time limit. My daughter is 14 and very bright and quick. But, she has her head full of all sorts of other things these days (MSN, Boys etc etc). I reckon she will sail through it within the time. But, through lack of interest and distraction, she will get quite a few wrong.

I'll let you know how we get on tomorrow.

Cheers. BB.

[Bunnylump]

But, he is VERY slow and he lacks concentration

DEFINITELY a boy then!! I'd be interested to know how they get on! I'm just going to try it out on my 18 year old (if I can stop him eating for long enough...)

[kingsley]

I've just done that test and I got 15/15 with 5:13 left on the clock.

I did the 11+ tests 3 years ago, and although I found it relatively easy because my brain has progressed in the last 3 years, I thought it was harder than the tests I did do 3 years ago.

[strep98]

I did the 11+ and passed and that was the worst 5 years of my life after that. We were not tutored as the gave us the basics in school then, but a friend of mine who is a teacher at the grammar school says he can spot the children who have passed due to intense tutoring as most can't keep up in the basic subjects and fall behind.