Coaching for the Transfer Procedure

Coaching for the Transfer Procedure: perspectives and perceptionsLeslie Caul, Sandra McWilliams and Gail EasonPaper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, 7-10 September 2000IntroductionThis strand of the project Research on Selection in Northern Ireland focuses on coaching which is discussed from two perspectives. Coaching is differentiated between preparation provided in the school and that provided by external sources.Preparation in school is defined as the help the school provides to pupils within test conditions and includes an introduction to examination techniques. Coaching from external sources could be further subdivided into two parts: - coaching provided by the parents themselves - coaching which involves the use of professional tutors (normally teachers other than child’s own teacher ) who are usually paid an hourly rate.The objectives of this study are as follows:1. To identify the extent of coaching among children sitting the Transfer Procedure. 2. To ascertain why parents seek external coaching. 3. To identify the extent of special in-school preparation for pupils doing the Transfer Tests. 4. To assess the cost of external tuition for children taking the tests. 5. To identify the impact of coaching upon pupils taking the Transfer Procedure.The study will attempt to understand coaching from the viewpoint of both schools and parents. It will assess the degree to which preparation for the Transfer Test is employed in schools, how it encroaches on out of school hours, and its impact on children in their formative years. This study of coaching presents a quantitative response to the question “What is the impact of coaching on the Transfer Procedure?” This is defined in terms of quantifying the amount of coaching that is taking place, and gauging the views of parents with regards to the utility of having their children coached. The data has been collected through talking to parents in focus1 groups reflecting different social contexts, and through a survey of Primary Schools in Northern Ireland. A third aspect of the research has been to locate and discuss coaching with those actively involved in the process but outside the Primary School.The aim of the study is to produce a worthwhile account of the coaching of children for the Transfer procedure. There are two main parts to this research. The first is a questionnaire designed to collect information about preparation for the test undertaken within schools and the preparation of the Transfer Test undertaken outside the school. This questionnaire was sent to all 940 primary schools in Northern Ireland. A high response of 606 replies represents a sample of 64% of primary schools in Northern Ireland. The questionnaire had four main sections: Information about the primary school, their management type, size, Board area and location of the school, i.e. urban area or rural location. Test preparation undertaken by the primary school. As a part of this the school principal was asked to make a number of value judgements about using school time to prepare children for the test. In the case of out of school coaching; school principals were asked to estimate the number of children they felt had coaches engaged for them personally. As a part of this section of the questionnaire school principals were asked to make a number of value judgements about coaching over and above that preparation provided by the school. School principals were invited to make any comment they wished to make about preparation for the transfer procedure either within or externally to the primary school. A second part of the study looks at a number of focus group interviews. In this section four focus groups and a fifth supplementary group were consulted about preparation for the Transfer Tests. Parents with children undergoing selection and those with younger children discussed their perceptions of coaching.Sample A questionnaire, included as Appendix 1, was sent to 940 primary schools in Northern Ireland, to which 606 schools replied. This represents a reply rate of 64% of the total number of schools contacted. In excess of 60% of schools in each Board area replied to the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the breakdown of Primary schools by Board area and enrolment (1998/99). The Table shows the number of schools who replied to the questionnaire within their enrolment bands and the percentage number replying within each Board area. 2 Table 1: Breakdown of Primary Schools by Board area and Enrolment 1998/99AREA BOARD Table Total SIZEBAND TYPE BELB WELB NEELB SEELB SELB 1 - 49 Primary 43 28 14 37 122 Preparatory 2 4 6 50 - 99 Primary 5 53 59 34 71 222 Preparatory 2 1 1 1 5 100 - 199 Primary 22 43 58 46 73 242 Preparatory 3 1 6 10 200 - 299 Primary 25 24 32 25 28 134 Preparatory 2 2 300 + Primary 40 32 42 44 38 196 Preparatory 1 1 Table Total 100 196 223 170 251 940 63 126 162 115 140 606 63% 64% 73% 68% 82% 69%It should be noted that not all primary schools in the Southern Board area are within the selective system and that the treatment of the number of schools and views expressed by primary schools in the Southern Board should therefore to be treated with caution. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the sample by Board and Management type. Table 2 shows that in the North Eastern Education and Library Board, as would have been anticipated by a demographic breakdown, twice as many controlled schools replied to the questionnaire as maintained, whereas in the Belfast Board area the number of controlled and maintained schools was approximately equal. Table 2: Sample Schools 1998/99MANAGEMENT TYPE BOARD CONTROLLED MAINTAINED INTEGRATED BELB 31 49.2% 29 46% 3 3.8% NEELB 108 66.7% 49 30.2% 5 3.1% SELB 57 40.7% 79 56.4% 4 2.9% SEELB 72 63.7% 35 31% 6 5.3% WELB 47 37.3% 76 60.3% 3 2.4% Total 315 52.2% 268 44.4% 21 3.5%In the South Eastern, as in the North Eastern Board area, double the number of controlled schools replied as maintained schools, while there were a greater number of maintained schools replying to the questionnaire in the Southern and Western Board. Of the total sample,3 52% of schools who replied to the questionnaire were controlled and 44% maintained, and 4% Integrated schools. In terms of school size, as would have been anticipated there were no schools with less than 50 pupils in the Belfast Education and Library Board area while a percentage of small schools took the opportunity to reply from the other four Board areas. The replies from the Western Board area indicated that approximately 1 in 5 schools, 22.1% were from schools with less than 50 pupils enrolled. In the Belfast Board area and in the South Eastern Board area a large percentage of replies came from schools with enrolments in excess of 300 pupils, the Belfast Board area had 41% of schools with enrolments above 300 and in the South Eastern Board 35%.Table 3: Sample Schools 1998/99BOARD SIZE BELB NEELB SELB SEELB WELB less than 14 8.7% 21 15% 9 7.8% 28 22.2% 50 50 - 100 3 4.8% 47 29.2% 43 30.7% 21 18.3% 27 21.4% 101 - 200 19 30.2% 43 26.7% 42 30% 26 22.6% 26 20.6% 201 - 300 15 23.8% 24 14.9% 13 9.3% 18 15.7% 18 14.3% 301 + 26 41.3% 33 20.5% 21 15 41 35.7% 27 21.4%Table 3 shows sample schools by Board area and size of enrolment. As would have been expected in the four Board areas outside the Belfast conurbation the majority of schools who replied came from rural situations. This can be seen in Table 4 that shows sample schools by Board area and location divided between urban and rural locations. An urban area was defined as coming from a town of more than 10,000 people. Table 4: Sample Schools 1998/99 LOCATION BOARD URBAN RURAL TOTAL BELB 61 100% 61 100% NEELB 51 32.9% 104 67.1% 155 100% SELB 25 18.7% 109 81.3% 134 100% SEELB 54 49.1% 56 50.9% 110 100% WELB 34 28.3% 86 71.7% 120 100%Tables 1-4 show the distribution of schools by management type, size of enrolment and location of primary schools. Given approximately a 64% sample it is possible to argue that the replies accurately reflect Northern Ireland primary education. It also indicates, given the 4 distribution of schools by management type and by enrolment, that this sample accurately reflects the distribution of primary schools in Northern Ireland and that the results from this questionnaire can be used to draw conclusions that reflect the total population of primary schools.Preparation for the Transfer Procedure in SchoolsIt would appear from the evidence (see Table 5) that it is in Year 6 that preparations for the tests begin. Table 5: Preparation for the TestsPREPARATION MANAGEMENT BELOW Y5 Y5 Y6 Y7 TOTAL TYPE Controlled 1 0.3 17 5.5 285 91.6 8 2.6 311 100 Maintained 1 0.4 6 2.3 251 95.4 5 1.9 263 100 Integrated 1 4.8 19 90.5 1 4.8 21 100Figure 1: Preparation for the Transfer Tests.Preparation for the Transfer Tests 600500400300 MANAGEMENT TYPE200 INTEGRATED COUNT MAINTAINED100 CONTROLLED0 Missing Missing Y5 Y7 BELOW Y5 Y6PREPARATIONA small number of schools, 24 in all, prepared children for the tests in Year 5. However, it is in Year 6 when the majority of the schools begin to preparation for the Transfer Procedure. Figure 2 illustrates the amount of preparation in school in Year 6 by management type. Some 100 schools prepare children for the tests on 3 to 4 days a week, but it is clearly indicated that the largest proportion of schools do some preparation for the test on 1 to 2 days per week. Figure 1 shows the relative starting year for schools by school sector. Maintained schools tend to begin preparation slightly earlier than controlled schools.5 6 Figure 2: Frequency of Coaching in Year 6 200Y6Missing100 DAILY3-4 DAYS PER WEEK1-2 DAYS PER WEEKLESS THAN ONCE PER W t n EEK u oC 0 OTHER Missing MAINTAINED CONTROLLED INTEGRATEDM AN AGE MEN T TY PEThe evidence indicates that schools undertake preparation for the Transfer procedure in P6 and during two days per week throughout the school year. A very large percentage, 95%, of all schools in the sample reported that they did practice tests in school and prepared children for the actual tests. There were no significant differences between schools by Management Type, Board or location. It was universally accepted that schools coach children in test techniques for the Transfer Tests. However, 77% of recipients reported that they gave children complete tests to do at home, while 74% of all schools expected that children would receive considerable parental support in the completion of test papers at home. Given that in Year 6, 1-2 days throughout the complete academic year are spent doing tests all schools with children entered for the Transfer Test spend a considerable amount of time preparing children for the test. Table 6 below summarised preparation for the selection tests in schools.Table 6: Test Preparation in SchoolsMANAGEMENT TYPE CONTROLLED MAINTAINED INTEGRATED Tests in Ye 97.1% 96.9% 100.0% School s No 2.9% 3.1% Tests at Ye 74.4% 80.2% 75.0% Home s No 25.6% 19.8% 25.0% Encourage Ye 78.0% 78.0% 73.7% Parents s7 No 22.0% 22.0% 26.3%The next section of the questionnaire addressed the school's value position reported by school principals with regards to the value of coaching undertaken within the school day. In this regard four questions were asked and responses sought on a 5-point scale. This section posited that teaching children test techniques was in itself a valuable exercise both intrinsically for the child, for the child’s development as a valuable learning experience and for the school in the enhancement of its public perception as being concerned about the Transfer Tests. Here the respondents produced a surprising response. Given the reported amount of time and effort that went in to in-school coaching, 44% of all responses to the 4 value questions either agreed or strongly agreed while 39% of responses either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Table 7 below highlights this:-Table 7: Value Positions of Primary School Principals CATEGORY LABEL Strongly Agree 1 304 12.9 Agree 2 753 31.9 Disagree 4 595 25.2 Strongly Disagree 5 340 14.4 Total Responses 2362 100.0The views of school principals were bi-modal. They show a number of principals strongly supporting the teaching of testing and the view that teaching children test techniques was in itself a good thing. An equal number of principals disagree with that view. Forty percent of principals felt that school-based preparation for the transfer procedure was a valuable use of a teacher’s time, while 32% disagreed. Thirty percent of school principals felt that teaching for the Transfer Test did not displace other valuable educational experiences while 40% of respondents disagreed and felt that it did displace valuable experiences. Thirty three percent of principals felt that learning to do tests was a valuable educational experience. While 40% of principals disagreed with that statement, however, it was felt by 90% that public perception about school investment of time and effort in teaching test techniques enhanced the school’s reputation. Table 8 shows the views of school principals regarding the value of direct preparation for Transfer Tests.Table 8: Valuable Use of Teaching Time by Management Type MANAGEMENT TYPE Reponses CONTROLLED MAINTAINED INTEGRATED Total Strongly Agree 34 22 56 Agree 67 62 4 1338 Neither Agree or 58 35 2 95 Disagree Disagree 108 75 8 191 Strongly Disagree 40 66 5 111 Total Responses 307 260 19 586This aspect of the views of the principals reflected a significant difference by management type. ( P ≥ .0001). However, there are less maintained schools neutral about teaching test techniques. There were no other significant differences by Board or school location.Out of School CoachingOf the sample of principals who replied to the questionnaire 74% stated that they would be aware if children in their school were receiving coaching provided externally. School principals were of the view that they would be confident in their estimation of the percentage of pupils receiving out of school coaching. However, when this estimate was asked for, 50% of principals did not answer this question. Nevertheless, of those who did answer the question 23% of principals anticipated that less than 10% pupils in Year 6 or Year 7 received coaching. This percentage increased to 63% of school principals indicating that at least 20% of their children received coaching whereas 40% of principals indicated that an external person was coaching 30% or more of their pupils. In 10% of primary schools, principals estimated that more than 60% of pupils had a coach paid for by their parents. Figure 3 shows the extent of External Coaching by school management type.Figure 3: External Coaching External CoachingBy School Sector 706050 MANAGEMENT TYPE 40 Missing 30 CONTROLLED COUNT 20 MAINTAINED 100 MO INTEGRATED Missing <10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% .>60%PERCENTAGE9 Principals reported that there was a considerable amount of parental coaching for the Transfer Procedure. In this regard, 67% of principals estimated that parents were actively working with their children preparing them for the test. The proportion of children being coached by parents was estimated at being higher than those engaging private coaches with 36% of principals reporting that more than 60% of their children were receiving parental coaching. Table 9: Out of School Coaching (Non Parental Support)MANAGEMENT TYPE CONTROLLED MAINTAINED INTEGRATED Transfer Procedure Yes 72.3% 78.6% 76.2% No 27.7% 21.4% 23.8% Percentages Less than 10% 26.1% 20.7% 33.3% 10% 14.3% 13.1% 25% 20% 17.6% 26.9% 25% 30% 16.8% 7.6% 40% 5.9% 9% 8.3% 50% 8.3% 6.8% 60% 3.4% 6.2% More than 60% 7.6% 9.7% 8.3%It is clear from the information made available, in this instance, by 75% of schools, that external coaching is most prevalent in Year 6, although it was felt by 14% of principals that it began in Year 5. If this were the case then it would appear from 97% of the schools who replied to this question that a proportion of children was receiving coaching for the tests during Years 5 & 6. External private coaching tended to occur once a week. It was indicated by 40% of schools that external paid coaching was a weekly occurrence. Table 10 shows coaching undertaken by parents as estimated by school principals.Table 10: Out of School Coaching (Parental Support)MANAGEMENT TYPE CONTROLLED MAINTAINED INTEGRATED Col% Col% Col% Parents Coach Yes 71.3% 66.9% 85% No 28.7% 33.1% 15% Percentage Less than 10% 15% 9.9% 11.1% 10% 6.5% 5% 11.1% 20% 4.7% 6.9% 22.2% 30% 7.5% 7.9% 40% 6.5% 3% 50% 13.1% 11.9% 11.1% 60% 11.2% 18.8% 11.1%10 More than 60% 35.5% 36.6% 33.3%In a group of questions about the value of coaching taken outside of the school, 59% of school principals indicated that they were negative about out of school coaching. On the other hand 18% were positive about out of school coaching. Responses to this set of questions were distinctly different from those about the value of in-school coaching. In this instance the results were negatively skewed towards those expressing strong views questioning the value of out of school coaching. A large majority of schools felt that external coaching added pressure on children. Figure 4 illustrates the strength of this set of views between those principals who agreed and disagreed with the proposition. Those who identified added pressure are to the right of the graph.Figure 4: Indicates Pressure on ChildrenPercieved Pressure on Children 200M AN AGE MEN T TY PE100 MissingCONTROLLED t n MAINTAINED u oC 0 INTEGRATEDPR E SSU R E ON C H NThere was broad agreement between schools on all four value position questions about external coaching except for the question about whether coaching was a valuable preparation for tests. Here more maintained schools were positive about coaching while controlled schools were neutral about coaching. The amount of preparation offered to children in schools was not affected by the views of principals about pressure on children. One to two days per week was identified as the norm. Principals who were more positive about coaching in the school day did not report more time spent on test preparation in school. There was not a relationship between principals disapproving of the employment of an external coach and the proportion of children having paid assistance. This was the case in both maintained and controlled schools. However maintained schools prepare more frequently with 22.5% of maintained schools reporting test preparation taking place on 3/4 days per week. The 11 comparable figure for controlled schools was 15.7%. Irrespective of their views about pressure on children the majority of schools (52%) use 1/2 days per week in which to organise test preparation in school. The perceived need to organise significant in-school preparation is a powerful factor in Northern Ireland’s education system. This would appear to be driven by strong parental demand.Free Responses from School PrincipalsRespondents to the questionnaire were invited to add additional comments of their own choosing at the end of the questionnaire. As over 606 replies were received the range and diversity of comments were sorted into 2 main categories. These 2 categories were:Comments of a positive nature. Comments of a critical nature. As the second category was by far the larger of the two, this element was further subdivided into 4 sections. These were as follows: a) The public perception of the Transfer Procedure and coaching b) The unfairness associated with both of these c) The stress that the Transfer Procedure and coaching generates d) The resultant distortion to the curriculum Of the responses received 9 (1.5%) were positive about the Transfer Procedure. The comments that were made referred to the inevitability of selection in a highly competitive world and the desirability of coaching, in and out of the school, to give children a head start. If this head start is unfair to some pupils who are not coached it was reported by some principals to be an inevitable consequence of the Transfer Tests. Claims were made for the value of coaching e.g. enhancing self-esteem, making them self-reliant, developing problem solving skills etc. Claims were also made that the Transfer Procedure was relevant to the Northern Ireland Curriculum and that it was the fairest method available to guide the transfer of pupils to appropriate secondary schools. Principals reported that the public perception of the Transfer Tests and coaching focussed on societal pressures that parents and others generate and that children and schools have to face. They argued that schools were coming under enormous pressure to achieve grade A or B for their pupils as their reputation and standing in the community was at stake. Children who achieved Ds were still deemed to have failed. Some parents put children and their teachers under enormous pressure and that grammar schools had a strong vested interest in12 ensuring their own survival. All of which, they suggested, made the practice of coaching inevitable. The issue of unfairness was raised repeatedly by principals. This issue was predominant. The main source of grievance was the complaint that well-off parents gained a further advantage in being able to provide paid coaching. A body of opinion felt that the volume of children being coached reduced the validity and credibility of the test. Equally worrying for school principals was the large number of coached pupils who they perceived to obtain a grade A in the Transfer Test, yet their subsequent struggle with the rigour of academic work suggested that they were incapable of benefiting fully from a grammar school education. This favourable treatment of some pupils had the effect of disadvantaging some other pupils; the knock –on effect was that other pupils were forced to accept secondary school places when, in fact, they were more able academically. Another criticism related to the claim that the transfer tests and intensive coaching undermined everything that a good school should be trying to do e.g. building self – esteem, fostering positive values and respecting difference.Closely allied to the issue of unfairness was the issue of stress. The whole procedure of the Selective System and allied intensive coaching put schools, pupils and their parents under enormous pressure. This stress had a ripple effect into family life. Another claim related to increased and intense media pressure in the subject.The distortion of the curriculum also drew a lot of comment. The most common complaint was that the whole procedure distorted and narrowed the Key Stage Two curriculum. This came about because large blocks of time in school were being devoted to intensive preparation. Complaints were made that the whole exercise focussed attention on the product of learning rather than the process. This militated against notions of good primary practice – and undermined much of the spirit of the Northern Ireland Curriculum. Comments were also made on glaring mismatches between results on the transfer and the end of Key Stage test. This came about because the Transfer Tests does not fit in with the delivery of the Northern Ireland13 Curriculum. Teachers, as part of intensive preparation for the Tests, were forced to teach parts of Level 5- often before pupils were really ready for it. This, principals claimed, militated against good primary practice.One claim was made that some out of school coaching is expensive and in certain cases of little value. Some coaches were not thorough enough. They did not sort out what was needed and what was really on the syllabus. A few comments (less than 10%) were made regarding the desirability (or otherwise) of comprehensive education. Other comments were made that related to postponing the age of selection to 14 years. The principals who wrote the following comments probably best summarise the totality of the responses:Transfer tests militate against everything a good school should be doing, building self- esteem, fostering positive values, working towards, accepting difference and respecting difference. It is most unfair to young children labelling them in a manner which will affect the rest of their lives.The test is divisive and has nothing to do with the positive approach to education. Focus Interviews Focus interviews were carried out with groups of parents of primary age children to ascertain the level of participation and attitude towards coaching for the transfer procedure outside the school. The interviews took place in four schools. An inner city controlled school in West Belfast with high levels of deprivation contrasted sharply with a two-teacher school in a rural setting. One of the other two schools was a large maintained school in the centre of a provincial town whose pupils were drawn from all social classes. The fourth school was a small controlled school on the outskirts of Belfast where the parental group could be described as upper working class or aspirant middle class.In three of the schools there was a high level of awareness of the practice of external coaching for the transfer test which was married to a general awareness that their children may need more than the school has to offer on other occasions. It seems reasonable to extrapolate that those parents who pay for coaching for the Transfer Test may also in the future provide help for other examinations and this view was articulated by one parent and affirmed by the rest of the group.14 The majority of parents interviewed provided coaching for their children in the past and would continue to do so for any children currently in P7 and in the future as necessary. This was their view despite any conviction on the desirability of paid external coaching. The reasons reported included that parents felt, that by providing a coach they were giving their child 'that little edge, that little extra that may help them to succeed'. Other phrases such as 'realising their academic potential', and 'giving them confidence' were noted.The impression was given that coaching was provided for children whom the parents thought would be capable of achieving a grade that would gain them entry to a grammar school. Some parents said they would not provide coaching for a child who was not deemed to have a reasonable chance of success. To provide coaching for this group, would, it was felt put unnecessary pressure on the children. More academically able children were thought to be able to cope with the pressure. Apart from any academic benefits that may accrue, coaching was also, for parents, a way of overtly demonstrating their support for their children at a traumatic time. The parents themselves did acknowledge, however, that there was a certain amount of peer pressure from their own social group. The parents also claimed that their children were happy to be coached. Most of the parents were largely supportive of the schools’ part in preparing their children though internally administered tests, but felt that for the reasons noted above they had a significant role to play.The most prevalent form of external coaching which emerged was the child being coached individually either in their own home or in the home of the coach. The most common rate quoted was £15 an hour, though slightly lower and higher figures were mentioned. Some parents acknowledged that they provided coaching even though it meant some financial sacrifice. An alternative strategy volunteered was that a parent could coach their child using commercially produced material.A minority of parents in one of the three schools refused to become involved in external coaching. The reason cited was 'it put undue pressure on the child' with one saying that she wanted her son 'to gain entry into a grammar school by his own efforts'. This parent quoted incidences of children being coached through the test but being unable to cope with the academic demands of the grammar school and suffering as a consequence. All parents accepted that the system was unfair with some parents being able to 'buy' advantage for their children. Despite this, they were overwhelmingly against the removal of selection and the introduction of comprehensive schooling. There was an acceptance of the public perception that Northern Ireland’ s education system is superior to the rest of the United Kingdom.15 The views expressed in the inner-city school were so divergent from those articulated in the other three schools that they merit special attention. The interview revealed an almost total lack of awareness of the practice of paying for extra help for one’s children. The group had not heard coaching discussed among parents in general. When the economics of the situation were explained they were unanimous in their assertions that the cost would be beyond their capacity to pay even if they had known about its availability. The discussion revealed a lack of any detailed knowledge of the education system and the general passivity and powerlessness of these parents in relation to their children’s educational growth and development. A general feeling that the Transfer Procedure was unfair was expressed but could not be elaborated upon.In conclusion, from this small scale study, the following most salient points could be made. The capacity for some parents to gain an advantage for their children in the education system is related to their understanding of how the education system works. In the case of the provision of external coaching parents are seeking to buy an advantage for their children. ConclusionsThis study has differentiated coaching between preparation for test techniques undertaken within the school and the employment of external and often ‘personal’ coaches for children. It is a universally undertaken exercise to provide intensive and continuous preparation for the selection tests within schools. This process normally begins in Year 6 and sessions are undertaken on one to two days per week. It is a fair reflection to say that all schools undertake this exercise and that the dynamic for the importance of in-school preparation comes from parents. Clearly parents demand that schools undertake such intensive preparation. It was also seen to be the case that maintained schools tend to begin coaching earlier and do more preparation than controlled schools. One of the most interesting issues to emerge from the Focus Group discussions was the level of disassociation and marginalisation of working class parents. This group felt that the preparation of the children for the Transfer Procedure was a function exclusive to the school and parents felt that the charges of between £12 and £15 per hour inconceivable and beyond their means. However, the vast majority of parents in the focus group interviews, did see a role for coaching and did encourage their children to compete. This was drawn to the teams attention by some principals who felt that the competitive nature and preparation for a 16 competition such as the Transfer Procedure was not a part of the process of education for children 11 years of age.There can be no doubt that there is a growth industry among ‘out of school’ coaches and that a considerable number of parents, estimated in this survey at up to 35% of all children undertaking the Transfer Test having external coaching. External coaching can cost up to and in excess of £12 an hour. Parents report that they prefer to appoint a personal coach for their children and that they seek external coaching when they consider that their children have some academic aptitude and would benefit from the additional assistance.BIBLIOGRAPHYAdvisory Council for Education in Northern Ireland (1973). Reorganisation of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland. The Burges Report, Belfast HMSO Cmd. 574.Benn, C. & Simon, B. (1970). Halfway There. London. McGraw - HillBerger, P (1966). Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Harmondsworth, England.Egan, M & Bunting, B. (1991) The Effects of Coaching on 11+ Scores. British Journal of Education Psychology. 61, 85-91Malone, J. M. (1988) School Projects in Community Relations. Belfast: John Malone Memorial Trust. Ministry Circular (1967/55) quoted in Sutherland, A.E (1990) Education within a Selective System in Caul, L. (ed) 1990 Schools under Scrutiny London: MacMillan Education.Popper, K.R (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies. (5th ed., rev). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1966.Simon, B (1953) Intelligence Testing & the Comprehensive School in Simon, B (1971) Intelligence, Psychology & Education. Surrey: Unwin Brothers.Sutherland, A.E (1990) Education within a Selective System in Caul, L. (ed) 1990 Schools under Scrutiny London: MacMillan Education.Sutherland, A.E & Gallagher, A.M (1986) Transfer & the Upper Primary School. Report No. 1 from the NICER Transfer Procedure Project. Belfast: Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research.Vernon, P. (1957) Secondary School Selection: A British Psychological Society Inquiry. London: Methuen.17

Coaching for the Transfer Procedure

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support