Grammar Schools

[AJS-]

superkartracer said:

6512
3265
TERM

Never even heard of Verbal Reasoning , is this correct ?

That's what I got. Do I get into grammar school?

[Efbe]

superkartracer said:

6512
3265
TERM
Never even heard of Verbal Reasoning , is this correct ?

Justayellowbadge said:

You overstate it, surely?
I saw the answer in a few seconds. I cannot believe most adults couldn't grasp that.

well done then.
Honestly most people wouldn't get how to do that. And verbal reasoning is just a logic test. IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

The way children are taught to work it out is to look for patterns in the codes. two numbers in the same position. then look for two letters in the same position, then to see if this works for the other words.
It's a specific way of doing it that takes out the thinking and logic.

[AJS-]

More than "a few seconds" though. A good few minutes of head scratching there. But as you said it's the technique. My first thought was to look for a some system of numbering all the letters of the alphabet eg a=1 b=2. It took me a minute to realise that there weren't enough numbers. Doh!

[Justayellowbadge]

Efbe said:

superkartracer said:

6512
3265
TERM
Never even heard of Verbal Reasoning , is this correct ?

Justayellowbadge said:

You overstate it, surely?
I saw the answer in a few seconds. I cannot believe most adults couldn't grasp that.

well done then.
Honestly most people wouldn't get how to do that. And verbal reasoning is just a logic test. IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

The way children are taught to work it out is to look for patterns in the codes. two numbers in the same position. then look for two letters in the same position, then to see if this works for the other words.
It's a specific way of doing it that takes out the thinking and logic.

Really? Seems an odd way - a glance showed that the positions of '4' and 'R' were unique and that solved it. Trying to match patterns within the individual data sets seems illogical.

[C.A.R.]

Efbe said:

well done then.

IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

Again though (and this isn't a personal attack on you, I promise!) I disagree with that notion.

It's about comprehension of patterns, sometimes codes, sometimes images. It can't / shouldn't be taught. Technique can be learned, but only the brightest kids will be able to apply them. If the question changes slightly I'd imagine that a tutored kid would be baffled, and rightly so.

This is testing for intelligence, not an academic subject. It cannot be 'learned', IMO.

[Esseesse]

Efbe said:

The entry test for Grammar school is largely based (66% for the school My children will aim for) on a subject not taught in school: Verbal reasoning.
Maths equates for 33% of the remainder, with an English test being used to decide between the last places.

A child who excels in school will have very little advantage over the class idiot for this section. It just so happens private tutoring is available for Verbal Reasoning, and is pretty much essential, as you need to know how to answer each type of question. Some of the questions are not easy either. There is a technique for each that needs to be learnt. I would wager that without guidance most of the top 5% of school children would fail miserably.

Given the cost of private tutoring, this means Grammar entrance is utterly parental-income based.

You know you can buy books (Letts IIRC) that is full of this sort of thing. To do so and help your child get to grips with this stuff need not cost a great deal. My mum (very) occasionally gave me one of these books as a bit of extra homework to do, I will do the same.

Edit: And I didn't mind too much either because most of this verbal reasoning stuff seems like a puzzle/game! Hardly arduous.

[Trax]

ATG said:

andymadmak said:

Listening to the lady on R4 this morning her primary objections seemed to centre on the fact that :

1. 15% of pupils would be coming from (horror) private primary schools
2. The middle classes are more inclined to push their kids to pass the 11 plus than working class parents
3. Educated people tended to influence their children in a positive way
4. Improving social mobility is not important

Err ... she didn't say social mobility wasn't important. She was saying that points 1,2 and 3 meant that Grammar Schools didn't contribute to social mobility because they were just reinforcing existing social divisions.

Does it make sense to teach in a way that reflects a kid's ability? Yes, surely? Is that more practically achieved in a classroom of roughly equal ability? Yes, surely?

But does it follow that the school's entire intake should be of similar ability or achievement to date? No. Is there any reason to suppose that Grammar Schools are a particular good model to follow? I don't know anyone in private or public sector education who is particularly enthusiastic about them.

They've always struck me as a rather unambitious solution to the problem of state education. "Average standards may be poor, but at least we can rescue a few from the quagmire." We ought to aspire to do better than that.

The problem is, I do not car about social mobility, I care about my child, and only my child.

Would I want her in the local school, with the no-hopers (by no-hopers we really mean children the not bothered)? Off course not.

We should not social engineer the better children to a lower standard, just because they have parents that care.

[superkartracer]

Justayellowbadge said:

Efbe said:

superkartracer said:

6512
3265
TERM
Never even heard of Verbal Reasoning , is this correct ?

Justayellowbadge said:

You overstate it, surely?
I saw the answer in a few seconds. I cannot believe most adults couldn't grasp that.

well done then.
Honestly most people wouldn't get how to do that. And verbal reasoning is just a logic test. IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

The way children are taught to work it out is to look for patterns in the codes. two numbers in the same position. then look for two letters in the same position, then to see if this works for the other words.
It's a specific way of doing it that takes out the thinking and logic.

Really? Seems an odd way - a glance showed that the positions of '4' and 'R' were unique and that solved it. Trying to match patterns within the individual data sets seems illogical.

Well , i could see the pattern between the letter T and 1 , it all then falls into place , bit like the Rain Man ha ha .

Edited by superkartracer on Thursday 15th October 14:10

[Efbe]

C.A.R. said:

Efbe said:

well done then.

IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

Again though (and this isn't a personal attack on you, I promise!) I disagree with that notion.

It's about comprehension of patterns, sometimes codes, sometimes images. It can't / shouldn't be taught. Technique can be learned, but only the brightest kids will be able to apply them. If the question changes slightly I'd imagine that a tutored kid would be baffled, and rightly so.

This is testing for intelligence, not an academic subject. It cannot be 'learned', IMO.

I understand

However logic can be taught. as can "IQ" measured in IQ-tests.

Children at this age will never have seen anything slightly like this before. Not even close.
Logic at this level is never going to be difficult. I could teach almost any* child at age 10/11 to answer these questions using a set technique.
By adding in this type of question that is reliant on the child having practiced them before ensures that only those tutored will have a chance.

Surely base the test on what the children have learnt!

• As an ex-teacher I think I could teach almost any child any subject, I personally think there is no such thing as a bright or dim child, it's just how they have been taught. Having seen children I have taught some from being dunces to aceing tests.

[otolith]

I think we should aim to give each individual child the best education that the budget will allow. If that is achieved by having specialised schools for certain types of children, that's absolutely fine by me.

[Piersman2]

Justayellowbadge said:

Efbe said:

superkartracer said:

6512
3265
TERM
Never even heard of Verbal Reasoning , is this correct ?

Justayellowbadge said:

You overstate it, surely?
I saw the answer in a few seconds. I cannot believe most adults couldn't grasp that.

well done then.
Honestly most people wouldn't get how to do that. And verbal reasoning is just a logic test. IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

The way children are taught to work it out is to look for patterns in the codes. two numbers in the same position. then look for two letters in the same position, then to see if this works for the other words.
It's a specific way of doing it that takes out the thinking and logic.

Really? Seems an odd way - a glance showed that the positions of '4' and 'R' were unique and that solved it. Trying to match patterns within the individual data sets seems illogical.

Same here, although I used the 'T's to work it out. Longest time it took me was the several seconds to twig that the words and numbers weren't supposed to be aligned under each other in the correct order as the formatting suggested, but that you were supposed to work out which number set belonged to which word before answering the questions below.

[Esseesse]

It seems as though we currently may be removing the point of the remaining grammar schools anyway...

Grammar schools 'to favour poor pupils in admissions'

[superkartracer]

Efbe said:

C.A.R. said:

Efbe said:

well done then.

IMO this type of thing should be taught at school at this age, however logic based questions don't really some into play until well into high school in maths, chemistry etc

Again though (and this isn't a personal attack on you, I promise!) I disagree with that notion.

It's about comprehension of patterns, sometimes codes, sometimes images. It can't / shouldn't be taught. Technique can be learned, but only the brightest kids will be able to apply them. If the question changes slightly I'd imagine that a tutored kid would be baffled, and rightly so.

This is testing for intelligence, not an academic subject. It cannot be 'learned', IMO.

I understand

However logic can be taught. as can "IQ" measured in IQ-tests.

Children at this age will never have seen anything slightly like this before. Not even close.
Logic at this level is never going to be difficult. I could teach almost any* child at age 10/11 to answer these questions using a set technique.
By adding in this type of question that is reliant on the child having practiced them before ensures that only those tutored will have a chance.

Surely base the test on what the children have learnt!

• As an ex-teacher I think I could teach almost any child any subject, I personally think there is no such thing as a bright or dim child, it's just how they have been taught. Having seen children I have taught some from being dunces to aceing tests.

Unsure regards - no such thing as a bright or dim children , i could tell the time ( using a real clock ) by the age of 3 and also tie shoes etc ( self taught ) , downside being i could manipulate most adults from an early age and used them as toys , it's not something i'm particularly proud of tho .

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Piersman2 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

gregf40 said:

Some parents push their kids into playing football as soon as they can walk - others don't. Guess which ones become footballers?

The brightest kids do not get into grammar schools, but the kids of parents who can afford private tuition where they are coached to pass the entrance exam are the ones who get in. Yes, they may be quite bright kids in order to pass even after tuition, but certainly no brighter than loads of kids from less affluent families who can't pass because their parents can't afford the extra tuition.

Sorry, this is just bullst, the agenda that the media keeps pushing. It's true that I knew some parents that were paying for tution, maybe 1 hour or so a week, not exactly the sort of expense likely to ruin a family's finances over a 2 or 3 month timescale. You might also be surprised to learn that almost without exception, it made no difference, the kids didn't get in, they still couldn't pass the exams.

The children that got in were those recognised at primary school as being 'gifted' AND where the parents put in the effort to make enquiries and put their children through the entrance process. Without these two basic things, the child is not getting to grammar. If the child is not 'gifted' it won't pass the tests, if the parents don't try even the most gifted child won't get in.

Well round our way (West London), it's a different story. The kids have hours and hours of tuition purely doing past papers and being coached to pass the entrance exam. Kids from poorer backgrounds don't have a hope in hell. Every kid I know who's at the local grammar comes from a middle class home. My 2 kids were bright but went to the local comp as it has a good reputation. (even though I could afford the extra tuition). They were in top set for everything. My eldest got 12 high grade GCSEs and 3 good A levels, my youngest got 12 high grade GCSEs and is currently doing A levels.

And they've both enjoyed their time at secondary school.

[Esseesse]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well round our way (West London), it's a different story. The kids have hours and hours of tuition purely doing past papers and being coached to pass the entrance exam. Kids from poorer backgrounds don't have a hope in hell.

They would have a hope in hell if there were plenty of grammar school places available.

[Fittster]

Esseesse said:

Fittster said:

crashley said:

but if you want your children to achieve the best, that's a great place to start.

If you want your children to achieve the best place to start is being rich yourself. The biggest sign of how will children will do in education is parental wealth.

http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-...

Having the option to go to a Grammar school for everyone will go some way to address this. What we have now is far more elitist.

Poor children don't go to Grammar school, those middle class mums snap up all the places.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/...

[otolith]

So design a better selection system that's harder to game.

You will always have more middle class children going to selective schools, because on average they have "better" genes and a "better" upbringing. Is that a reason to cripple their education? Are they not entitled to be enabled to be the best they can be?

[fido]

Grammar is the single best thing that happened to me growing up. It gave me the chance of a private school education that my parents would have struggled to give me - and the comprehensives in the area were terrible (though less so today because it's become more affluent). This in turn helped me to get into a good university and onto postgraduate - the only one in family. Also got me into sports, music and mixing with bright kids which I didn't get from home. It also got me my first job in the City as my boss also went to the same school - though obviously this isn't a good reason for Grammars(!)

[Fittster]

Esseesse said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well round our way (West London), it's a different story. The kids have hours and hours of tuition purely doing past papers and being coached to pass the entrance exam. Kids from poorer backgrounds don't have a hope in hell.

They would have a hope in hell if there were plenty of grammar school places available.

No they wouldn't. Even if the 1950's very few poor children got a place at grammar school.

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/crowt...

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Due to the obviously flawed methodology involved in the approach taken - several major flaws shout out loud from one read-through alongside the claimed conclusion in quotes above - the article's key claim isn't valid as presented. Some of the issues arising are set out below, which may be of interest for those with access to the FT.

Firstly, is it a claim that grammar schools are of benefit in terms of outcomes to poor pupils, or is it a claim about intelligent poor pupils, such that they gain entrance to a grammar school and do not go to a comprehensive? To get the right answer one needs to address the right question.

Deprivation data happens to be available in certain packages, this should not dictate anything. Within all LAs there are pockets of relative deprivation and areas of relative affluence. Averaging out such data comes close to being unhepful in terms of one LA, for a region it's close to being meaningless.

When conflating several selective local authorities into one mythical region 'Selectivia' do those local authorities that exist within the regions have their performance data reworked after the grammar schools are removed from the data, or are they allowed to remain in place and so (by virtue of being counted in both camps) dishonestly boost pupil outcomes from the averages for so-called non-selective and supposedly poorer regions?

Partly linked to the point above, the author compares Selectivia to London as though the two are separate, when this is not the case, since selection operates within 'London' in 7 LAs no less (Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Enfield, Kingston upon Thames, Redbridge and Sutton). What does it mean to compare Selectivia with London?

Part of the comparison follows from "you can build a simple regression that links up..." well it may be the case that you can do that but how it's done is rather pertinent to assessing if it generates pearls of wisdom or chaff.

The essence of obtaining grammar school places is 11+ performance by individual children, not collective performance of Primary schools.

This type of analysis would be better done within LAs where selection exists and where it's possible to identify a number of children who pass their 11+ with a certain score, after which some pupils and their parents opt for grammar school places and some opt for places in other schools. This does happen...not all children with grammar school 'passes' end up at a grammar school. Naturally, children of Labour voting parents will refuse any offer of a place in keeping with labour's opposition to selection, after accidentally entering their offspring for the tests. That last sentence may involve irony. Anyway, at this point the socioeconomic context of those children can be examined, their future learning outcomes studied, and on we go.

To describe the overall lash-up as primitive is to give it more credit than is due.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 15th October 14:37