Confusion over national newspaper's 11+ report

Philip Wayne

Philip Wayne

First published in News Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

AN Observer article at the weekend backtracked on an earlier story, which claimed the new 11+ test thwarted pushy parents.

The original piece was published at the start of February and said the redesigned exam, which was introduced in Bucks last September, identifies the most able pupils, not just those from wealthy backgrounds.

But it acknowledged this week it did not have any concrete figures to back up the claims.

An article published on Sunday by the readers' editor, Stephen Pritchard, said the previous article did not hold both sides of the story.

He said the article said provisional results indicate that a more diverse selection of pupils passed this test, and headteachers say they feel the change has made a difference.

But he added: "But where were those 'provisional results'? The story contained no figures. "And only two headteachers were quoted. One was Philip Wayne, chairman of the Bucks Grammar Schools Association, who said he was 'very confident' that the new test would make a difference, which was understandable as his association had implemented it, and the other a primary school head, introduced to the paper by Mr Wayne, who claimed the test was a success for her pupils.

"And while the story acknowledged that the continuing existence of grammar schools is controversial it did not quote anyone in Buckinghamshire who might take a contrary view."

Mr Pritchard went on to say Derek Berry, a member of Wycombe Labour party, asked the council some questions at Christmas about the total number of pupils from state schools who had passed the test and those from private and out-of-county schools who had been successful.

The estimated figures between 2013 and 2014, he wrote, appear to show the proportion of Bucks state primary school pupils receiving a grammar school place decreased from 44 per cent to 38 pent, while those from Bucks private schools dropped from 21 per cent to 15 per cent and those from out of county increased from 35 per cent to 47 per cent.

Officially, no exam statistics are available until September, after an appeals process has been completed.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:26pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Why is it necessary for local headmasters and Conservative politicians to mislead everybody - even the national press now by the look of it - so much about 'selection'?
Why is it necessary for local headmasters and Conservative politicians to mislead everybody - even the national press now by the look of it - so much about 'selection'? Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

9:14pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Thank you BFP for giving a straight report of the other side of the great confidence trick known as ‘selective education in Buckinghamshire’ instead of your often cheerfully approving stuff.

The Observer report you refer to – by Stephen Pritchard the Guardian/Observer Readers' Editor - apologises for giving a lopsided report last autumn of the new ‘finally perfected’ 11+ exam in this county - see http://www.theguardi
an.com/theobserver/2
014/mar/08/readers-e
ditor-on-reporting-b
oth-sides-argument
The Observer report last autumn had said:
"Provisional results indicate that a more diverse selection of pupils passed this test, and headteachers say they feel the change has made a difference."
This is so broad as to sound as if it was based on the words of Philip Wayne reported in the BFP last October:
We were pleased overall with the secondary transfer test both in terms of the process and its content. It was an excellent partnership between grammar schools, primary schools and the county council admissions service. Data is being analysed, but early feedback from our primary headteacher colleagues is that the test was appropriate for the purpose for which it was designed,
(see http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/107
51891.New_11__hailed
_a_success_by_gramma
r_schools/
And funnily enough Stephen Pritchard apologises for the fact that:
... only two headteachers were quoted. One was Philip Wayne, chairman of the Bucks Grammar Schools Association, who said he was "very confident" that the new test would make a difference, which was understandable as his association had implemented it, and the other a primary school head, (Ms Ros Rochefort, headteacher at Bledlow Ridge primary school) introduced to the paper by Mr Wayne, who claimed the test was a success for her pupils.
Mr Pritchard goes on to explain that:
Officially, no exam statistics are available until September, after an appeals process has been completed. Bucks county council told me that the county's grammar schools are now centrally-funded academies and are their own admissions authorities; technically, the schools own the data and the council can't release them yet.
(I expected last autumn when Mr Wayne’s apparently measured but basically meaning-devoid response was being quoted in the BFP, that the supposed perfecting of the system would be forgotten by the time the first set of results came out but it looks as though the Observer’s source - who can it be - was it just Mr Wayne? - could not resist jumping the gun.)
Editor Pritchard is apologetic about the shortcomings of the Observer’s original report:
… some simple digging would have revealed that opposition groups in the county had winkled out provisional figures from the council that suggest a different story on admissions. At Christmas … a member of Wycombe Labour party, asked the council some straight questions about the total number of pupils from state schools who had passed the test and those from private and out-of-county schools who had been successful.
Extrapolated, the figures he received purport to show that between 2013 and 2014 the proportion of Bucks grammar school places going to children from local state primary schools decreased from 44% to 38%. Despite the number of applicants from state primaries increasing by nearly 300 for this year, 110 fewer children from these schools won a grammar school place.
The figures also showed the proportion of places won by pupils from Bucks private schools dropped from 21% to 15% – but then 292 fewer children from these schools entered the exam. The number of places going to out-of-county children, however, rose by 336 to 1,174, giving these pupils 47% of the available grammar school places.
It would not have been difficult for the Observer to find people who question why Buckinghamshire taxpayers support grammar schools in Bucks when apparently, though this currently cannot be confirmed, more than 60% of places go to pupils from private schools or schools from outside the county.

When the BFP quoted Mr Wayne last year, I and a number of other people pointed out that Mr Wayne’s words were so vague as to be meaningless However I know that at least one local person has been trying to obtain other 11+ data by means of laborious requests under the Freedom of Information Act - why is it necessary to do this when the taxpayers of Buckinghamshire are paying for the system through their Council Tax? Why is the system not transparent if it is a rational one? The secrecy and the po-faced dishonesty surrounding the 11+ system are two of the things about it that should be objectionable to grown-ups, and unjustifiable in a democracy where voters are supposed to ‘endorse’ an educational selection system that they know very little of as it functions secretly.

Mr Wayne is quoted later in the Guardian/Observer’
s retraction by Mr Pritchard and this time Mr Wayne is dogged but even more abstract and cagey:
Mr Wayne would not be drawn on these extrapolations. "I believe that the figures quoted to you (i.e. those obtained by a member of Wycombe Labour party) and the interpretation placed upon them are inaccurate" he said. "I cannot, therefore, make an informed comment until the process is complete.
If Mr Wayne cannot make an informed comment now then why was he able to comment so firmly in the BFP report (and the Observer’s) last October?

Apparently Mr Wayne, (like the Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Education, Mike Appleyard), has now gone almost silent and is resorting to the broadest statements of faith and belief (Mike Appleyard seems to have given up doing even that and has lapsed into complete silence on ‘selection’ at secondary level).

Nonetheless I would like to ask Mr Wayne if he would deny that he and Ros Rochefort, headteacher at Bledlow Ridge primary school, whom he introduced to the Observer, provided the Observer with - at best - misleading information?

The facts that firstly Mr Wayne (a headmaster who should set an example of veracity and intellectual rigour to young people) needs to provide apparently ungrounded statements of support for ‘reforms’ to the current system, and secondly that the Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Education, Mike Appleyard, has been chairman of the governors at one of the numerous local Secondary Modern schools which has been taken into special measures, both show the casual contempt with which the local Conservative party and the people who uncritically vote for it regard the education of children in this county. (I admire many Conservatives and some are friends personally but the ‘selection’ system in this county and the secondary education system it supports are beyond all reason.)

It’s no wonder the BFP so often writes such uncritically-approvi
ng, superficial drivel about local schools when an august left-of-centre national journal like the Observeris taken in.

(The Observer’s misleading original report in which it apparently relied on Mr Wayne is at:
http://www.theguardi
an.com/education/201
4/feb/08/grammar-sel
ective-schools-exam-
tutors)
Thank you BFP for giving a straight report of the other side of the great confidence trick known as ‘selective education in Buckinghamshire’ instead of your often cheerfully approving stuff. The Observer report you refer to – by Stephen Pritchard the Guardian/Observer Readers' Editor - apologises for giving a lopsided report last autumn of the new ‘finally perfected’ 11+ exam in this county - see http://www.theguardi an.com/theobserver/2 014/mar/08/readers-e ditor-on-reporting-b oth-sides-argument The Observer report last autumn had said: [italic] "Provisional results indicate that a more diverse selection of pupils passed this test, and headteachers say they feel the change has made a difference." [/italic] This is so broad as to sound as if it was based on the words of Philip Wayne reported in the BFP last October: [italic] We were pleased overall with the secondary transfer test both in terms of the process and its content. It was an excellent partnership between grammar schools, primary schools and the county council admissions service. Data is being analysed, but early feedback from our primary headteacher colleagues is that the test was appropriate for the purpose for which it was designed, [/italic] (see http://www.bucksfree press.co.uk/news/107 51891.New_11__hailed _a_success_by_gramma r_schools/ And funnily enough Stephen Pritchard apologises for the fact that: [italic]... only two headteachers were quoted. One was Philip Wayne, chairman of the Bucks Grammar Schools Association, who said he was "very confident" that the new test would make a difference, which was understandable as his association had implemented it, and the other a primary school head, (Ms Ros Rochefort, headteacher at Bledlow Ridge primary school) introduced to the paper by Mr Wayne, who claimed the test was a success for her pupils. [/italic] Mr Pritchard goes on to explain that: [italic] Officially, no exam statistics are available until September, after an appeals process has been completed. Bucks county council told me that the county's grammar schools are now centrally-funded academies and are their own admissions authorities; technically, the schools own the data and the council can't release them yet. [/italic] (I expected last autumn when Mr Wayne’s apparently measured but basically meaning-devoid response was being quoted in the BFP, that the supposed perfecting of the system would be forgotten by the time the first set of results came out but it looks as though the Observer’s source - who can it be - was it just Mr Wayne? - could not resist jumping the gun.) Editor Pritchard is apologetic about the shortcomings of the Observer’s original report: [italic] … some simple digging would have revealed that opposition groups in the county had winkled out provisional figures from the council that suggest a different story on admissions. At Christmas … a member of Wycombe Labour party, asked the council some straight questions about the total number of pupils from state schools who had passed the test and those from private and out-of-county schools who had been successful. Extrapolated, the figures he received purport to show that between 2013 and 2014 the proportion of Bucks grammar school places going to children from local state primary schools decreased from 44% to 38%. Despite the number of applicants from state primaries increasing by nearly 300 for this year, 110 fewer children from these schools won a grammar school place. The figures also showed the proportion of places won by pupils from Bucks private schools dropped from 21% to 15% – but then 292 fewer children from these schools entered the exam. The number of places going to out-of-county children, however, rose by 336 to 1,174, giving these pupils 47% of the available grammar school places. It would not have been difficult for the Observer to find people who question why Buckinghamshire taxpayers support grammar schools in Bucks when apparently, though this currently cannot be confirmed, more than 60% of places go to pupils from private schools or schools from outside the county. [/italic] When the BFP quoted Mr Wayne last year, I and a number of other people pointed out that Mr Wayne’s words were so vague as to be meaningless However I know that at least one local person has been trying to obtain other 11+ data by means of laborious requests under the Freedom of Information Act - why is it necessary to do this when the taxpayers of Buckinghamshire are paying for the system through their Council Tax? Why is the system not transparent if it is a rational one? The secrecy and the po-faced dishonesty surrounding the 11+ system are two of the things about it that should be objectionable to grown-ups, and unjustifiable in a democracy where voters are supposed to ‘endorse’ an educational selection system that they know very little of as it functions secretly. Mr Wayne is quoted later in the Guardian/Observer’ s retraction by Mr Pritchard and this time Mr Wayne is dogged but even more abstract and cagey: [italic] Mr Wayne would not be drawn on these extrapolations. "I believe that the figures quoted to you (i.e. those obtained by a member of Wycombe Labour party) and the interpretation placed upon them are inaccurate" he said. "I cannot, therefore, make an informed comment until the process is complete. [/italic] If Mr Wayne cannot make an informed comment now then why was he able to comment so firmly in the BFP report (and the Observer’s) last October? Apparently Mr Wayne, (like the Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Education, Mike Appleyard), has now gone almost silent and is resorting to the broadest statements of faith and belief (Mike Appleyard seems to have given up doing even that and has lapsed into complete silence on ‘selection’ at secondary level). Nonetheless I would like to ask Mr Wayne if he would deny that he and Ros Rochefort, headteacher at Bledlow Ridge primary school, whom he introduced to the Observer, provided the Observer with - at best - misleading information? The facts that firstly Mr Wayne (a headmaster who should set an example of veracity and intellectual rigour to young people) needs to provide apparently ungrounded statements of support for ‘reforms’ to the current system, and secondly that the Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Education, Mike Appleyard, has been chairman of the governors at one of the numerous local Secondary Modern schools which has been taken into special measures, both show the casual contempt with which the local Conservative party and the people who uncritically vote for it regard the education of children in this county. (I admire many Conservatives and some are friends personally but the ‘selection’ system in this county and the secondary education system it supports are beyond all reason.) It’s no wonder the BFP so often writes such uncritically-approvi ng, superficial drivel about local schools when an august left-of-centre national journal like the [italic]Observer[/italic]is taken in. (The Observer’s misleading original report in which it apparently relied on Mr Wayne is at: http://www.theguardi an.com/education/201 4/feb/08/grammar-sel ective-schools-exam- tutors) Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

9:31pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Last October I quoted the words of Philip Wayne in a comment on your report of his approving words about the tinkering with the 11+. Mr Wayne had said:


We were pleased overall with the secondary transfer test both in terms of the process and its content. It was an excellent partnership between grammar schools, primary schools and the county council admissions service.
"Data is being analysed, but early feedback from our primary headteacher colleagues is that the test was appropriate for the purpose for which it was designed

(see: http://www.bucksfree
press.co.uk/news/107
51891.New_11__hailed
_a_success_by_gramma
r_schools/)

I commented:
‘… what exactly do the words of Philip Wayne mean? ’ (There were other remarks similar to mine - no doubt from other people who are impractical, malcontented, egalitarian zealots, similar to me.)

Even last October the words of Mr Wayne were so vague as to be meaningless and the Observer is right to apologise for apparently basing a report largely on what he said. But surely if Mr Wayne cannot make an informed comment now then why was he able to do so (and in such a confident manner) in the BFP report last October (and the Observer’s later)?

This is not a report about someone at the Observer being ‘confused’ or Mr Wayne being ‘confused’ surely - that suggests an honest misunderstanding - it is a report about the Observer being misled by Mr Wayne.
Last October I quoted the words of Philip Wayne in a comment on your report of his approving words about the tinkering with the 11+. Mr Wayne had said: [italic] We were pleased overall with the secondary transfer test both in terms of the process and its content. It was an excellent partnership between grammar schools, primary schools and the county council admissions service. "Data is being analysed, but early feedback from our primary headteacher colleagues is that the test was appropriate for the purpose for which it was designed [/italic] (see: http://www.bucksfree press.co.uk/news/107 51891.New_11__hailed _a_success_by_gramma r_schools/) I commented: ‘… what exactly do the words of Philip Wayne [italic]mean? [/italic]’ (There were other remarks similar to mine - no doubt from other people who are impractical, malcontented, egalitarian zealots, similar to me.) Even last October the words of Mr Wayne were so vague as to be meaningless and the Observer is right to apologise for apparently basing a report largely on what he said. But surely if Mr Wayne cannot make an informed comment now then why was he able to do so (and in such a confident manner) in the BFP report last October (and the Observer’s later)? This is not a report about someone at the Observer being ‘confused’ or Mr Wayne being ‘confused’ surely - that suggests an honest misunderstanding - it is a report about the Observer being [italic] misled [/italic]by Mr Wayne. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 2

10:09pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

How many people believe that people who are satisfied with the new 11+ are genuinely worried by well-off professionals manipulating the 11+ with coaching?

I often suspect they are worried that working-class people will get coaching and slip through, and they are making the test less easily manipulated for that reason. Someone who supports a test that sorts children into sheep and goats at age ten is hardly genuinely worried about equality and meritocracy surely - they are obsessed by hierarchies false or real.
How many people believe that people who are satisfied with the new 11+ are genuinely worried by well-off professionals manipulating the 11+ with coaching? I often suspect they are worried that working-class people will get coaching and slip through, and they are making the test less easily manipulated for that reason. Someone who supports a test that sorts children into sheep and goats at age ten is hardly genuinely worried about equality and meritocracy surely - they are obsessed by hierarchies false or real. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 3

7:33pm Sat 15 Mar 14

slickchick says...

The County's grammar school heads are beginning to gain a reputation that has up to now been exclusively held by the banking sector. They are only interested in their own agenda. They will trample over the interests of the people they are supposed to serve, refuse to disclose information and claim they were misquoted when their statements are challenged.

If the new exam is fairer and more inclusive, why do they refuse to provide the data? The data available from Bucks L.A. shows that the Bucks children have less chance of gaining a grammar school place with the new 11+ test.

The Bucks selective system is biased against the interest of the children in Bucks state funded schools, the new exam whether by design or error has tipped the scale in favour of privately educated and out-of-county children at the expense of the Bucks state school children.

The damage that the selective system does to the Upper Schools which Bucks 11+ failure children have to endure is a national disgrace. Bucks is one of the worst counties for educational under achievement in the country. The new test will now increase the number of Bucks children that have to go into the many Bucks Upper schools that OFSTED rate as requiring improvement or failing schools.
The County's grammar school heads are beginning to gain a reputation that has up to now been exclusively held by the banking sector. They are only interested in their own agenda. They will trample over the interests of the people they are supposed to serve, refuse to disclose information and claim they were misquoted when their statements are challenged. If the new exam is fairer and more inclusive, why do they refuse to provide the data? The data available from Bucks L.A. shows that the Bucks children have less chance of gaining a grammar school place with the new 11+ test. The Bucks selective system is biased against the interest of the children in Bucks state funded schools, the new exam whether by design or error has tipped the scale in favour of privately educated and out-of-county children at the expense of the Bucks state school children. The damage that the selective system does to the Upper Schools which Bucks 11+ failure children have to endure is a national disgrace. Bucks is one of the worst counties for educational under achievement in the country. The new test will now increase the number of Bucks children that have to go into the many Bucks Upper schools that OFSTED rate as requiring improvement or failing schools. slickchick
  • Score: 4

9:45pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

I am standing by for a biting riposte to all this from the unashamed champions of excellence at BCC and the local education establishment - will the sleeping giant Mike Appleyard at last thunder his disagreement?
I am standing by for a [italic]biting[/italic] riposte to all this from the unashamed champions of excellence at BCC and the local education establishment - will the sleeping giant Mike Appleyard at last thunder his disagreement? Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 4

9:57pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - do local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?
Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - [italic]do [/italic] local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools? Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 4

5:30pm Sun 16 Mar 14

HerculePoirot says...

Ros Rochefort, who was quoted in the original article, is Head of Bledlow Ridge school. This school describes itself as: "a small village school set in lovely surroundings high up in the Chilterns", and Ofsted notes that "This oversubscribed village school serves an area where families are mainly of White British heritage", and "Very few pupils are known to be eligible for free school meals".

If the Head of this school tells us that the test was a success for her pupils, then I think alarm bells should be ringing!

Presumably this is why the Bucks Grammar School Heads Association are getting their retaliation in first!
Ros Rochefort, who was quoted in the original article, is Head of Bledlow Ridge school. This school describes itself as: "a small village school set in lovely surroundings high up in the Chilterns", and Ofsted notes that "This oversubscribed village school serves an area where families are mainly of White British heritage", and "Very few pupils are known to be eligible for free school meals". If the Head of this school tells us that the test was a success for her pupils, then I think alarm bells should be ringing! Presumably this is why the Bucks Grammar School Heads Association are getting their retaliation in first! HerculePoirot
  • Score: 6

12:29pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Marlow Mum says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - do local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?
I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence.
Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future.
Utter madness.
Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas...
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - [italic]do [/italic] local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?[/p][/quote]I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence. Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future. Utter madness. Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas... Marlow Mum
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Marlow Mum says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - do local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?
I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence.
Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future.
Utter madness.
Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas...
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - [italic]do [/italic] local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?[/p][/quote]I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence. Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future. Utter madness. Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas... Marlow Mum
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

The impression I get is that grammar schools are simply part of Brand Tory© and, like a car manufacturer’s logo, they are kept purely as part of an image, not because they serve any useful function (quite the opposite in the case of grammar schools) and we are all - well over 60% of us - going to have to suffer for that part of the image.


There is a wealth of data to show grammar schools short-change 11+ successes as well as failures and thinking I was missing the point somewhere I emailed Mike Appleyard some years ago to get the final insider word from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, and I asked him why Bucks County Council was so enthusiastic for the 11-plus - he gave me what I suspected (and still suspect) were misleading statistics - obfuscatory comments like Philip Wayne above while saying that people voted for the policy. I asked him for further information about the statistcs and he promised several times to get it but went silent.


I don’t see how we can meaningfully vote for a policy that is kept largely confidential and which local education spokesmen refuse to talk sensibly about or indeed to talk about at all.


If the Conservative party is really the party of efficiency and meritocracy why don’t we have comprehensive schools of the kind that are established now, and highly successful, in other parts of the country, including Conservative local authorities?
The impression I get is that grammar schools are simply part of Brand Tory© and, like a car manufacturer’s logo, they are kept purely as part of an image, not because they serve any useful function (quite the opposite in the case of grammar schools) and we are all - well over 60% of us - going to have to suffer for that part of the image. There is a wealth of data to show grammar schools short-change 11+ successes as well as failures and thinking I was missing the point somewhere I emailed Mike Appleyard some years ago to get the final insider word from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, and I asked him why Bucks County Council was so enthusiastic for the 11-plus - he gave me what I suspected (and still suspect) were misleading statistics - obfuscatory comments like Philip Wayne above while saying that people voted for the policy. I asked him for further information about the statistcs and he promised several times to get it but went silent. I don’t see how we can meaningfully vote for a policy that is kept largely confidential and which local education spokesmen refuse to talk sensibly about or indeed to talk about at all. If the Conservative party is really the party of efficiency and meritocracy why don’t we have comprehensive schools of the kind that are established now, and highly successful, in other parts of the country, including Conservative local authorities? Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

1:34pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Marlow Mum wrote:
Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - do local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?
I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence.
Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future.
Utter madness.
Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas...
Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School.


Don’t tell me - Mr/Ms So and So and their team make Great Marlow/wherever school into a shining beacon of excellence outside the grammar schools in the area.
[quote][p][bold]Marlow Mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - [italic]do [/italic] local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?[/p][/quote]I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence. Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future. Utter madness. Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas...[/p][/quote][italic] Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. [/italic] Don’t tell me - Mr/Ms So and So and their team make Great Marlow/wherever school into a shining beacon of excellence outside the grammar schools in the area. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 8

1:37pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Aren't we lucky!
Aren't we lucky! Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 3

4:35pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Marlow Mum says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Marlow Mum wrote:
Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - do local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?
I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence.
Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future.
Utter madness.
Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas...
Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School.


Don’t tell me - Mr/Ms So and So and their team make Great Marlow/wherever school into a shining beacon of excellence outside the grammar schools in the area.
Not at all what I mean. I mean that I feel lucky that there is a great secondary school on our doorstep so that the 11+ basically becomes immaterial to me/my kids. I just feel sorry for the kids that have no other option than some of the other secondary schools in the area...
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marlow Mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Are you a local teacher not at a grammar school - [italic]do [/italic] local teachers outside the grammar schools (except Ms Rochefort the junior school head introduced to the Observer by Mr Wayne) believe the 11+ accurately assesses children's talent and do they believe that those who fail the 11+ are fulfilled academically and intellectually at non-grammar schools?[/p][/quote]I personally am not, but I know many who meet the above criteria. The general view from secondary school teachers in Bucks is that the system is not fair in the slightest. Neither does the 11+ accurately predict intelligence. Finally - and here's the rub - there are many children in Bucks' grammar schools that have been hot-housed in order to get a place and then struggle horrifically for the foreseeable future. Utter madness. Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. I truly feel for those people in some other catchment areas...[/p][/quote][italic] Thankfully, we are in the catchment area of Great Marlow School. [/italic] Don’t tell me - Mr/Ms So and So and their team make Great Marlow/wherever school into a shining beacon of excellence outside the grammar schools in the area.[/p][/quote]Not at all what I mean. I mean that I feel lucky that there is a great secondary school on our doorstep so that the 11+ basically becomes immaterial to me/my kids. I just feel sorry for the kids that have no other option than some of the other secondary schools in the area... Marlow Mum
  • Score: 0

9:57am Wed 19 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

It sounds as though that is what you mean actually – you are one of the numerous local people who have to take what they are given and take refuge in believing they are lucky because - by a really marvellous coincidence whichever secondary modern school they have on their doorstep happens to be the only one in the locality that is not disadvantaged by the system.


This reminds me of Shaw’s remark about:
“Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get”


Philip Wayne and the others must be laughing at your naivety.
It sounds as though that [italic]is [/italic]what you mean actually – you are one of the numerous local people who have to take what they are given and take refuge in believing they are lucky because - by a really marvellous coincidence whichever secondary modern school they have on their doorstep happens to be the only one in the locality that is not disadvantaged by the system. This reminds me of Shaw’s remark about: “Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get” Philip Wayne and the others must be laughing at your naivety. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 4

10:18am Wed 19 Mar 14

Marlow Mum says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
It sounds as though that is what you mean actually – you are one of the numerous local people who have to take what they are given and take refuge in believing they are lucky because - by a really marvellous coincidence whichever secondary modern school they have on their doorstep happens to be the only one in the locality that is not disadvantaged by the system.


This reminds me of Shaw’s remark about:
“Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get”


Philip Wayne and the others must be laughing at your naivety.
There is no naivety on my behalf. I went through Bucks' grammar school system myself. It is not the golden egg that some might like to think.
I want my children to grow up as well-rounded individuals with a respect for other people - regardless of status, religion, background, culture etc. Frankly, some of the children from our local grammar have a terrifying sense of misplaced superiority - I have stopped the car on numerous occasions to let them cross the road at lunchtime and am yet to get any acknowledgement of a thank you.
I would *not* be happy for my children to go to any secondary school in the county as there are - quite clearly - a number that are not fit for purpose. However, I would be extremely happy for them to go to GMS.
The system is far from ideal, I agree. The secondary schools are clearly disadvantaged when it comes to finances (not least because they don't always have a PTA throwing cash at the school hand over fist).
I am a realist though and believe - courtesy of the Tory stranglehold on the area - nothing has changed and nothing *will* change in my lifetime.
Their kids go to grammar or private - so why would they care about the rest?
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: It sounds as though that [italic]is [/italic]what you mean actually – you are one of the numerous local people who have to take what they are given and take refuge in believing they are lucky because - by a really marvellous coincidence whichever secondary modern school they have on their doorstep happens to be the only one in the locality that is not disadvantaged by the system. This reminds me of Shaw’s remark about: “Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get” Philip Wayne and the others must be laughing at your naivety.[/p][/quote]There is no naivety on my behalf. I went through Bucks' grammar school system myself. It is not the golden egg that some might like to think. I want my children to grow up as well-rounded individuals with a respect for other people - regardless of status, religion, background, culture etc. Frankly, some of the children from our local grammar have a terrifying sense of misplaced superiority - I have stopped the car on numerous occasions to let them cross the road at lunchtime and am yet to get any acknowledgement of a thank you. I would *not* be happy for my children to go to any secondary school in the county as there are - quite clearly - a number that are not fit for purpose. However, I would be extremely happy for them to go to GMS. The system is far from ideal, I agree. The secondary schools are clearly disadvantaged when it comes to finances (not least because they don't always have a PTA throwing cash at the school hand over fist). I am a realist though and believe - courtesy of the Tory stranglehold on the area - nothing has changed and nothing *will* change in my lifetime. Their kids go to grammar or private - so why would they care about the rest? Marlow Mum
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Got to disagree.

The first half-dozen sentences of your reply are a bit dodgy and seem to rely a lot on personal impressions.

Going through the Bucks grammar school system does not mean there is no naivety on your part today when you say you would be happy for your children to go to the local secondary modern.

The grammar school system may not be a golden egg but it provides a good or high standard of education for people who go there after age eleven, and it does so as part of a larger system that automatically provides a dire standard on the whole for the majority, who are 11+ failures.

Your children can have a good education while being well-rounded individuals – they don’t need to go to secondary modern schools to be well-rounded they can do this at a comprehensive school. There is no choice between being a well-rounded person and being a well-educated one.

One of the reasons our nowadays beyond weird educational system continues in Bucks, is the power of dishonesty and BS - people try to pretend that secondary moderns are somehow equal but different to grammar schools. Another reason is that people like you, while acknowledging the shortcomings of the Conservative mafia’s system will make excuses like ‘MY local secondary modern however is quite satisfactory unlike a lot of the rest’. (This fits in with Conservative orthodoxy: ‘there are a lot of dedicated staff/fine schools in Bucks.’)

This exceptionalism means people don’t have to acknowledge the massive injustice to our children who fail the 11+ and this plays into the hands of unscrupulous or irresponsible individuals who wish to prolong the existing system and it makes it easier for people like Mike Appleyard to remain silent and Philip Wayne to make misleadingly vague approving statements to the local and national press.
Got to disagree. The first half-dozen sentences of your reply are a bit dodgy and seem to rely a lot on personal impressions. Going through the Bucks grammar school system does not mean there is no naivety on your part today when you say you would be happy for your children to go to the local secondary modern. The grammar school system may not be a golden egg but it provides a good or high standard of education for people who go there after age eleven, and it does so as part of a larger system that automatically provides a dire standard on the whole for the majority, who are 11+ failures. Your children can have a good education while being well-rounded individuals – they don’t need to go to secondary modern schools to be well-rounded they can do this at a comprehensive school. There is no choice between being a well-rounded person and being a well-educated one. One of the reasons our nowadays beyond weird educational system continues in Bucks, is the power of dishonesty and BS - people try to pretend that secondary moderns are somehow equal but different to grammar schools. Another reason is that people like you, while acknowledging the shortcomings of the Conservative mafia’s system will make excuses like ‘MY local secondary modern however is quite satisfactory unlike a lot of the rest’. (This fits in with Conservative orthodoxy: ‘there are a lot of dedicated staff/fine schools in Bucks.’) This exceptionalism means people don’t have to acknowledge the massive injustice to our children who fail the 11+ and this plays into the hands of unscrupulous or irresponsible individuals who wish to prolong the existing system and it makes it easier for people like Mike Appleyard to remain silent and Philip Wayne to make misleadingly vague approving statements to the local and national press. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 2

4:39pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Marlow Mum says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Got to disagree.

The first half-dozen sentences of your reply are a bit dodgy and seem to rely a lot on personal impressions.

Going through the Bucks grammar school system does not mean there is no naivety on your part today when you say you would be happy for your children to go to the local secondary modern.

The grammar school system may not be a golden egg but it provides a good or high standard of education for people who go there after age eleven, and it does so as part of a larger system that automatically provides a dire standard on the whole for the majority, who are 11+ failures.

Your children can have a good education while being well-rounded individuals – they don’t need to go to secondary modern schools to be well-rounded they can do this at a comprehensive school. There is no choice between being a well-rounded person and being a well-educated one.

One of the reasons our nowadays beyond weird educational system continues in Bucks, is the power of dishonesty and BS - people try to pretend that secondary moderns are somehow equal but different to grammar schools. Another reason is that people like you, while acknowledging the shortcomings of the Conservative mafia’s system will make excuses like ‘MY local secondary modern however is quite satisfactory unlike a lot of the rest’. (This fits in with Conservative orthodoxy: ‘there are a lot of dedicated staff/fine schools in Bucks.’)

This exceptionalism means people don’t have to acknowledge the massive injustice to our children who fail the 11+ and this plays into the hands of unscrupulous or irresponsible individuals who wish to prolong the existing system and it makes it easier for people like Mike Appleyard to remain silent and Philip Wayne to make misleadingly vague approving statements to the local and national press.
I actually agree with most of what you state above. Especially the massive injustice to children not securing a place in a grammar school or good secondary.
However, I do feel that my personal impressions are perfectly valid when it comes to choosing schools for my children.
I've enjoyed this debate though :0)
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Got to disagree. The first half-dozen sentences of your reply are a bit dodgy and seem to rely a lot on personal impressions. Going through the Bucks grammar school system does not mean there is no naivety on your part today when you say you would be happy for your children to go to the local secondary modern. The grammar school system may not be a golden egg but it provides a good or high standard of education for people who go there after age eleven, and it does so as part of a larger system that automatically provides a dire standard on the whole for the majority, who are 11+ failures. Your children can have a good education while being well-rounded individuals – they don’t need to go to secondary modern schools to be well-rounded they can do this at a comprehensive school. There is no choice between being a well-rounded person and being a well-educated one. One of the reasons our nowadays beyond weird educational system continues in Bucks, is the power of dishonesty and BS - people try to pretend that secondary moderns are somehow equal but different to grammar schools. Another reason is that people like you, while acknowledging the shortcomings of the Conservative mafia’s system will make excuses like ‘MY local secondary modern however is quite satisfactory unlike a lot of the rest’. (This fits in with Conservative orthodoxy: ‘there are a lot of dedicated staff/fine schools in Bucks.’) This exceptionalism means people don’t have to acknowledge the massive injustice to our children who fail the 11+ and this plays into the hands of unscrupulous or irresponsible individuals who wish to prolong the existing system and it makes it easier for people like Mike Appleyard to remain silent and Philip Wayne to make misleadingly vague approving statements to the local and national press.[/p][/quote]I actually agree with most of what you state above. Especially the massive injustice to children not securing a place in a grammar school or good secondary. However, I do feel that my personal impressions are perfectly valid when it comes to choosing schools for my children. I've enjoyed this debate though :0) Marlow Mum
  • Score: 1

10:03am Thu 20 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... mirabile dictu by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?)

I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.
Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... [italic]mirabile dictu[/italic] by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?) I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

10:17am Thu 20 Mar 14

Marlow Mum says...

Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... mirabile dictu by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?)

I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.
I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... [italic]mirabile dictu[/italic] by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?) I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.[/p][/quote]I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space... Marlow Mum
  • Score: 0

11:29am Thu 20 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Marlow Mum wrote:
Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... mirabile dictu by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?)

I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.
I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...
Let us know if they get in.
[quote][p][bold]Marlow Mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... [italic]mirabile dictu[/italic] by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?) I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.[/p][/quote]I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...[/p][/quote]Let us know if they get in. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Thu 20 Mar 14

HerculePoirot says...

From the Observer article: "But what about the test itself? It was devised by a team from Durham University, led by Prof Robert Coe. Prof Coe said he would "absolutely not" claim that his test was "tutor-proof". "We use the best available research to try to minimise the impact of tutoring and broaden access to grammar schools, but we never claim it is tutor-proof," he said. He would not comment on that research or the content of the test."

So, basically, thet have no evidence at all to back up any of the claims for this test.

Looking at Prof Rob Coe's website, I see he is working hard on research projects including: "11+ Test Exclusive To The Grammar Schools", "Grammar Schools In England ", "Social class bias in selection", and "Entrance Test Development". None of these projects have had any outputs yet.

In his inaugural lecture, Prof Coe produced a graph of Impact vs Cost for various things we might do to improve education. Of all the measures on his plot, "Ability Grouping" was the most useless - and the only one plotted that overall had a negative impact on outcomes.

I'm not surprised he wouldn't comment.....
From the Observer article: "But what about the test itself? It was devised by a team from Durham University, led by Prof Robert Coe. Prof Coe said he would "absolutely not" claim that his test was "tutor-proof". "We use the best available research to try to minimise the impact of tutoring and broaden access to grammar schools, but we never claim it is tutor-proof," he said. He would not comment on that research or the content of the test." So, basically, thet have no evidence at all to back up any of the claims for this test. Looking at Prof Rob Coe's website, I see he is working hard on research projects including: "11+ Test Exclusive To The Grammar Schools", "Grammar Schools In England ", "Social class bias in selection", and "Entrance Test Development". None of these projects have had any outputs yet. In his inaugural lecture, Prof Coe produced a graph of Impact vs Cost for various things we might do to improve education. Of all the measures on his plot, "Ability Grouping" was the most useless - and the only one plotted that overall had a negative impact on outcomes. I'm not surprised he wouldn't comment..... HerculePoirot
  • Score: 2

3:28pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Marlow Mum wrote:
Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... mirabile dictu by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?)

I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.
I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...
Steve Baker our MP said it was Highcrest that parents were preferring to grammar schools - what's the point in having a test that stigmatises children as sheep and goats if the parents of the successful ones are going to send them to secondary moderns when they can go to grammar schools?
[quote][p][bold]Marlow Mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... [italic]mirabile dictu[/italic] by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?) I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.[/p][/quote]I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...[/p][/quote]Steve Baker our MP said it was [italic]Highcrest [/italic]that parents were preferring to grammar schools - what's the point in having a test that stigmatises children as sheep and goats if the parents of the successful ones are going to send them to secondary moderns when they can go to grammar schools? Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 1

3:34pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

HerculePoirot wrote:
From the Observer article: "But what about the test itself? It was devised by a team from Durham University, led by Prof Robert Coe. Prof Coe said he would "absolutely not" claim that his test was "tutor-proof". "We use the best available research to try to minimise the impact of tutoring and broaden access to grammar schools, but we never claim it is tutor-proof," he said. He would not comment on that research or the content of the test."

So, basically, thet have no evidence at all to back up any of the claims for this test.

Looking at Prof Rob Coe's website, I see he is working hard on research projects including: "11+ Test Exclusive To The Grammar Schools", "Grammar Schools In England ", "Social class bias in selection", and "Entrance Test Development". None of these projects have had any outputs yet.

In his inaugural lecture, Prof Coe produced a graph of Impact vs Cost for various things we might do to improve education. Of all the measures on his plot, "Ability Grouping" was the most useless - and the only one plotted that overall had a negative impact on outcomes.

I'm not surprised he wouldn't comment.....
I've pointed out before that none of the right-wing ideologues at BCC Education Service are willing to comment - Philip Wayne's remarks did not actually mean anything and Mike Appleyard is silent.


(They must be ideologues even though they say nothing in defence of the indefensible - otherwise why would they perpetuate our beyond-weird system.)
[quote][p][bold]HerculePoirot[/bold] wrote: From the Observer article: "But what about the test itself? It was devised by a team from Durham University, led by Prof Robert Coe. Prof Coe said he would "absolutely not" claim that his test was "tutor-proof". "We use the best available research to try to minimise the impact of tutoring and broaden access to grammar schools, but we never claim it is tutor-proof," he said. He would not comment on that research or the content of the test." So, basically, thet have no evidence at all to back up any of the claims for this test. Looking at Prof Rob Coe's website, I see he is working hard on research projects including: "11+ Test Exclusive To The Grammar Schools", "Grammar Schools In England ", "Social class bias in selection", and "Entrance Test Development". None of these projects have had any outputs yet. In his inaugural lecture, Prof Coe produced a graph of Impact vs Cost for various things we might do to improve education. Of all the measures on his plot, "Ability Grouping" was the most useless - and the only one plotted that overall had a negative impact on outcomes. I'm not surprised he wouldn't comment.....[/p][/quote]I've pointed out before that none of the right-wing ideologues at BCC Education Service are willing to comment - Philip Wayne's remarks did not actually mean anything and Mike Appleyard is silent. (They [italic]must be[/italic] ideologues even though they say nothing in defence of the indefensible - otherwise why would they perpetuate our beyond-weird system.) Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 4

11:12pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

Marlow Mum wrote:
Undercover Euro Yob wrote:
Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... mirabile dictu by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?)

I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.
I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...
Marlow Mum

Ironically this letter isvery difficult to believe - it is so very similar to the ones we used to have about parents ‘exercising choice’ when deciding which school to send their children too - as if any parent had a real choice and as if someone might decide, after their child had passed the 11+, to send to their child to a secondary modern school because ‘ all the schools in Bucks are so good you know - not just the grammar schools’.

I will be interested to hear the outcome of this story about a child whose parents are trying hard to get them out of a grammar school and into a secondary modern school.
[quote][p][bold]Marlow Mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote: Very well then (if your personal impressions are perfectly valid) - the 11+ selects children for coaching to their maximum potential and your child has failed it ... but ... [italic]mirabile dictu[/italic] by a very lucky chance your child and their contemporaries are not disadvantaged in any way as they are at a local school that is as good as a grammar school. (Do a lot of children transfer from the local grammar schools to GMS?) I think I'll stick to my original view that Wayne, Appleyard and the other educational right-wing ideologues are laughing at you.[/p][/quote]I do know of a parent who is - right now - trying to transfer their child from John Hampden to GMS, but, rather ironically, is unable to get a space...[/p][/quote]Marlow Mum Ironically this letter is[italic]very [/italic]difficult to believe - it is so very similar to the ones we used to have about parents [italic] ‘exercising choice’ [/italic]when deciding which school to send their children too - as if any parent had a real choice and as if someone might decide, after their child had passed the 11+, to send to their child to a secondary modern school because ‘[italic] all [/italic]the schools in Bucks are so good you know - not just the grammar schools’. I will be interested to hear the outcome of this story about a child whose parents are trying hard to get them out of a grammar school and into a secondary modern school. Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 6

11:43pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Undercover Euro Yob says...

HerculePoirot wrote:
From the Observer article: "But what about the test itself? It was devised by a team from Durham University, led by Prof Robert Coe. Prof Coe said he would "absolutely not" claim that his test was "tutor-proof". "We use the best available research to try to minimise the impact of tutoring and broaden access to grammar schools, but we never claim it is tutor-proof," he said. He would not comment on that research or the content of the test."

So, basically, thet have no evidence at all to back up any of the claims for this test.

Looking at Prof Rob Coe's website, I see he is working hard on research projects including: "11+ Test Exclusive To The Grammar Schools", "Grammar Schools In England ", "Social class bias in selection", and "Entrance Test Development". None of these projects have had any outputs yet.

In his inaugural lecture, Prof Coe produced a graph of Impact vs Cost for various things we might do to improve education. Of all the measures on his plot, "Ability Grouping" was the most useless - and the only one plotted that overall had a negative impact on outcomes.

I'm not surprised he wouldn't comment.....
I'm surprised - are you sure he didn’t say something like:


We were pleased overall with the secondary transfer test both in terms of the process and its content. It was an excellent partnership between grammar schools, primary schools and the county council admissions service. Data is being analysed, but early feedback … is that the test was appropriate for the purpose for which it was designed, ?
[quote][p][bold]HerculePoirot[/bold] wrote: From the Observer article: "But what about the test itself? It was devised by a team from Durham University, led by Prof Robert Coe. Prof Coe said he would "absolutely not" claim that his test was "tutor-proof". "We use the best available research to try to minimise the impact of tutoring and broaden access to grammar schools, but we never claim it is tutor-proof," he said. He would not comment on that research or the content of the test." So, basically, thet have no evidence at all to back up any of the claims for this test. Looking at Prof Rob Coe's website, I see he is working hard on research projects including: "11+ Test Exclusive To The Grammar Schools", "Grammar Schools In England ", "Social class bias in selection", and "Entrance Test Development". None of these projects have had any outputs yet. In his inaugural lecture, Prof Coe produced a graph of Impact vs Cost for various things we might do to improve education. Of all the measures on his plot, "Ability Grouping" was the most useless - and the only one plotted that overall had a negative impact on outcomes. I'm not surprised he wouldn't comment.....[/p][/quote][italic][bold]I'm[/bold] [/italic] surprised - are you sure he didn’t say something like: [italic] We were pleased overall with the secondary transfer test both in terms of the process and its content. It was an excellent partnership between grammar schools, primary schools and the county council admissions service. Data is being analysed, but early feedback … is that the test was appropriate for the purpose for which it was designed, [/italic]? Undercover Euro Yob
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree