The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Is coaching students really so bad?

New, "more sophisticated" 11+ tests are being introduced in Kent to try to level the playing field for the pupils whose parent can't afford coaches to help their pupils pass.

But if the test is really so sophisticated, what kind of pupils will excel in it? Those who are are naturally academic? Those lucky enough to have landed in the catchment area of a good school?

It seems a bit unfair to less well off parents who live in areas with low-performing schools, and who make sacrifices to get their children coaches to give them better opportunities in life.

Is this a move that treats symptoms of a deeper issue rather than the issue itself :confused:

Thoughts?

Here's the article on the BBC news
As harsh as this is going to sound, in every walk of life, people with more money get better opportunities. This is a fact of life, and the sooner kids learn this, the better. You absolutely cannot create a 'level playing field' in any aspect of society, at all, people just need to adapt to their individual situations.

No matter what they change, there will always be ways for children with parents who are determined to get them ahead of the game to improve their chances.

EDIT: Also, even if the test IS changed year on year, which I think is a good idea, there are still certain things that will be expected.. i.e. maths, English, science curriculum.
Original post by Milostar
New, "more sophisticated" 11+ tests are being introduced in Kent to try to level the playing field for the pupils whose parent can't afford coaches to help their pupils pass.

But if the test is really so sophisticated, what kind of pupils will excel in it? Those who are are naturally academic? Those lucky enough to have landed in the catchment area of a good school?

It seems a bit unfair to less well off parents who live in areas with low-performing schools, and who make sacrifices to get their children coaches to give them better opportunities in life.

Is this a move that treats symptoms of a deeper issue rather than the issue itself :confused:

Thoughts?



I am not sure I believe in the uncoachable test.

Obviously it does exist, it must catch the naturally talented. Teachers don't acquire superhuman properties when employed on the payroll of a school that they don't have if employed privately by parents to coach. If you can't coach for it, then you can't teach for it.

The original 11+ from the 1940s-1970s was designed to be an IQ test. It did contain cultural biases largely because the upper middle class authors had little understanding of working class childhood in an era where media representation of childhood was very different. Subject to that it was designed to try and talent spot.

I am not sure to what extent the test has evolved over the last 40 years or it has succumbed to two pressures. The first is that it was designed for a world in which few if any people were coached. The second is that it was designed to discriminate between the top 20%-25% of the intelligence spectrum and the rest but in many present grammar schools it is discriminating between the top 3% or 4% and the rest.

I am not aware of complaints about the operation of the 11+ in somewhere like Lincolnshire, where it still operates largely as it was designed to do and you can and do get undersubscribed grammar schools where not enough kids who pass the 11+ pick a particular school.
Reply 3
Avatar for Joinedup
Joinedup
20
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
As harsh as this is going to sound, in every walk of life, people with more money get better opportunities. This is a fact of life, and the sooner kids learn this, the better. You absolutely cannot create a 'level playing field' in any aspect of society, at all, people just need to adapt to their individual situations.

No matter what they change, there will always be ways for children with parents who are determined to get them ahead of the game to improve their chances.

EDIT: Also, even if the test IS changed year on year, which I think is a good idea, there are still certain things that will be expected.. i.e. maths, English, science curriculum.


I don't think it's the kids that are particularly bothered most of the time.

It's an annoyance for the believers in what they like think of as 'the grammar school system'. The original purpose of the 11+ test was to select pupils into the most appropriate type of school, the school where they'd do best.
It wasn't supposed to be a pass/fail.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you