CEM 11 Plus

Help us prove the dishonesty of CEM © Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring© and Warwickshire County Council (WCC).

The practice of reusing the same test for late sitters is ridiculous as children clearly remember content to make a difference to late sitters. This makes testing unfair. Children pass on content to friends, parents and tutors, who prepare children for tests.

We have challenged these organisations to prove children do not remember content to make a difference to late sitters. They refuse to do so and  make unsubstantiated claims. Instead Warwickshire County Council (WCC) publicly state children do not remember content to make a difference to late sitters and privately applied for an ex-parte High Court Super-injunction to prevent us publishing content to prove children do remember content. During this case we discovered CEM Centre and WCC claimed they did not have signed written contracts for the 11+ test in 2013. Yet had signed written contacts for every other year. We have under-covered blatant dishonesty and what we believe is clear evidence of perverting the course of justice.

We believe WCC are engaging in a personal vendetta against this site and when we point out other sites publish content of their test they take no action for removal, but threaten us with legal action if we publish identical or similar content. What is the logic of allowing other sites to publish content but threaten this site? We believe this constitutes harassment.

There is no known injunction for any 11+ tests around the country for 2017 tests, but the issue is whether 10-year old children can report what was on a test. Would children be prosecuted if they reported to a school or council what was on a test? Surely, this cannot compromise a test. Since CEM Centre and WCC refuse to undertake this study we ask you for help regarding all tests that are set by CEM Centre. Once your child finishes the test and gets home, ask them to write down everything they remember about the test content and send it your their local authority, grammar school or University of Durham's CEM Centre directly. Ask them to confirm whether the information was on the test and whether it would compromise testing for late sitters. The Freedom of Information Act can be used to find out reports. Please let us know what their response is. But we do not encourage you to publish alleged content.  Our view is you should NOT publish the content. One can then challenge CEM Centre and WCC's stance that content children remember will not make a difference to late sitters.

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed after Kate Hiller, solicitor at Warwickshire County Council and Craig Pratt are alleged to have made false statements.

Craig Pratt signed a disclosure list with a statement of truth that described the document as"Contract for services between Warwickshire County Council and Durham University for the development of an 11+ assessment including an analysis of the results, production of the test paper and supporting material."

Kate Hiller stated in writing: "
”The County Council disclosed the Durham contracts as you had specifically requested them.  The County Council does not consider these to be particularly relevant to the proceedings.  Any relevance they do have is limited to the terms contained within them.  Therefore the questions you ask in relation to the signing of the documents are not relevant.

Colette Mary Naven-Jones signed a witness statement claiming there was no signed contract with Durham University for 2013 with was lodged with the Court of Appeal. Kate Hiller then signed an application lodged with the Court of Appeal to effectively claim the documents were draft and did not form contracts between itself and Durham and failed to disclose what the terms were.  Why disclose them as being the contracts? Kate Hiller refuses to explain herself. She must have checked the claim made by Craig Pratt. This appears to be a matter for the Courts.

If the courts are seen to treat serious examples of false evidence as of little importance, they run the risk of encouraging witnesses to regard the statement of truth as a mere formality. The prosecution of proceedings for contempt in the present case would be likely to have a salutary effect in bringing home to those who are involved in claims of this kind, of which there are many, the importance of honesty in making witness statements and the significance of the statement of truth.

For the sake of clarity we do not intend to publish the content of any tests whilst they are still used even though Durham University confirmed under the FOIA they would not consider it a breach of confidence. We have no intention to disrupt any tests.

During this case we discovered CEM Centre and WCC both claim they did not have written contracts for the 11+ test in 2013. Yet they had written contacts for every other year. We have under-covered blatant dishonesty and what we believe is clear evidence of perverting the course of justice. We have evidence of conflicting data as to who owned copyright and intellectual property and believe evidence exists to prove WCC and their witnesses: Amy Taylor and Craig Pratt misled the Court, as did their legal team. This legal case has cost WCC substantial funds, which they cannot recover from the grammar school and they undertook litigation without their express permission. WCC have no statutory responsibility for 11+ exams, making their stance even more bizarre. CEM Centre not only failed to litigate, they did not lodge a single complaint.

We believe WCC are engaging in a personal vendetta against this site and when we point out other sites publish content of their test they take no action for removal, but threaten us with legal action if we publish identical or similar content. What is the logic of allowing other sites to publish content but threaten this site? We believe this constitutes harassment.

WCC now threaten a further injunction for future tests. Their actions could be reasonably damage Durham Univeristy, who sell their tests on the basis they are suotable for late sitters and what ever children remember have little or no affect on test integrity.

Survey Results
* The absence of a bar indicates 0%.
 
CEM0CEM1CEM2CEM3CEM4CEM5CEM6
 
WB0WB1WB2WB3WB4WB5WB6WB7WB8
 
CCK0CCK1CCK2CCK3CCK4CCK5CCK6CCK7CCK8CCK9
 
 
Download FREE SATs papers. No registration & no annoying popup adverts.
 
 
11+ English (Verbal Reasoning)
online preparation with


Spellings; Vocabulary; Synonyms; Antomyms; Conundrums; Cloze Passages; Comprehension, and Jumbled up sentences. Ideal for 11+ tests set at the CEM Centre, at Durham University®.
www.WordBuilder.co.uk
 
 
11+ Maths (Numerical Reasoning)
and NVR online preparation with


Free maths question generator
Lesson notes; presentations (videos); worksheets; games; Sats style tests from Year 2 to 6 including mental maths audio tests; private school 11+ tests, and CEM style past questions.
Now includes Non-verbal Reasoning.
Ideal for 11+ tests set at the CEM Centre, at Durham University®.
www.CoolCleverKids.co.uk
 
 
The 11+ information site
Helping children pass the 11+
Free advice and resources with
recommendations for preparation.
 

Children’s Educational Material 11+
www.11plus.eu
Tel: +44 (0) 24 7641 6970 
Email: cemelevenplus@gmail.com
© 2013-2017. 11plus.eu. All rights reserved. Children's Educational Material for the 11+. 11plus.eu is a information website helping children pass the eleven plus. CEM Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring® is an independent not-for-profit research group based at the University of Durham® and neither are associated with 11plus.eu. GL Assessment ® has no connection with 11plus.eu. The views expressed are those of 11plus.eu. All trade names and trade marks are acknowledged.

 

We use cookies to make this website work better and improve your online experience. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of Cookies. Learn more about cookies.