Scholarship Report by Tonbridge School

FROM STUDENT TO SCHOLAR

TONBRIDGE ONLY CONNECT

CLASSICS

James Burbidge, Head of Classics

James.Burbidge@tonbridge-school.org

The Latin I paper was taken by 32 candidates (2021: 34, 2022: 28, 2023: 30, 2024: 27), Latin II by 17 (2021: 14, 2022: 19, 2023: 16, 2024: 17); this year Greek had one candidate (2021: 2, 2022: 4, 2023: 3; 2024: 0). Overall, Latin numbers were thus just above average for recent years (but a little down on pre-Covid figures).

The standard of candidates across the two Latin papers was generally encouraging: at the top end, some extremely able boys, and beyond that a significant majority of the candidates were performed very well; a few candidates taking Latin I found the subject challenging, but this was only really true of one boy taking Latin II. The one candidate who took Greek did very well. Teachers are once again thanked for preparing the boys for the exams, and for their future studies in these subjects. I say that every year, but (as I also re-iterate every time!) it really is very sincerely meant; the strength of Tonbridge Classics (and the boys’ enjoyment of the subject) has its foundations in prep school teaching.

LATIN I PAPER

The Latin I paper had the same format as in recent years – that is, a Latin passage for translation (50 marks: Section A), some further grammar questions on that passage (15 marks: Section B), and a third section offering a choice of a further Latin passage for comprehension or English sentences to be

translated into Latin (35 marks: Section C).

All candidates sitting the full set of scholarship exams bar seven boys sat the Latin I paper.

Two candidates scored 100%, and one 99%; sixteen boys gained marks between 77% and 97%; three gained marks between 70% and 76%; four gained marks between 60% and 69%; two boys scored in the 50s, three in the 40s, and one boy 37%. The spread of marks suggest that the paper was accessible, but sufficiently challenging to distinguish between candidates (which is of course part of its purpose). Eight boys scored more than 90%, which is more than in recent years. The paper was either less demanding than recent ones, or perhaps this was a particularly talented cohort; time will tell! After last year’s unusually low number of candidates scoring below 50% (only one boy), the total of four this year was close to the post-pandemic norm.

Section A (translation) was often done very well, but the area which proved challenging included: the present participles (understandably: boys in Years 9 and 10 continue to find participles hard); identifying that plurimos was superlative; translating the prohibition/negative imperative noli oppugnare; the noun telum, and making sense of cycnum in avem vertit. Marks on Section B varied from 0/15 to 15/15 (nine boys gained the latter mark); twenty-one of

the thirty-two candidates scored 10/15 or higher, which was an improvement on last year. Those with lower marks often struggled with both the singular of proelium and the plural of hasta; and quite a number of boys scored lower marks on the derivation section than might have been expected: this section is included partly since the GCSE papers test this, and partly since one might hope that one thing boys gain from studying Latin is a sense of the history of English and an understanding of why some English words mean what they do mean. Boys are advised to take their time on the derivation question, and make sure that they choose words where they know the Latin meaning and are sure that an English word is derived from it (some of the more notable possibilities in this passage were e.g. capta erat, naves, exspectantes, aqua, milites, vulneravit, iuvenis, corpus).

In the Section C Comprehension task, as ever the key point is to remember that the comprehension questions are effectively translation questions in disguise (as they are at GCSE): so candidates should aim to offer as full an answer as possible; those who gained the highest marks did this. Specific

challenges included recognising ibo as the future of eo; recognising passive verb forms; making sense of lines 10-11 (question [vi]), including the admittedly unfamiliar perfect tense pepulit.

Five boys chose to write English to Latin sentences in Section C. Three performed very well indeed (33.5/35 or higher), and one very well (31/35); the boy who performed much less well had also struggled with the rest of the paper.

LATIN II PAPER

The Latin II paper also had the same format as in recent years: a compulsory translation from Latin in Section A (50 marks), and a choice of further translation from Latin or English-Latin prose composition in Section B (50 marks).

Of the seventeen boys who sat the paper, two boys scored 97%; seven more boys gained marks of 90% or higher, four more in the 80s, two in the 70s, one 69% and one boy 48%. As with Latin I, then the boys were all able to access the paper and almost all of them acquitted themselves well; the paper did its job in distinguishing between boys of differing ability. The number of boys who scored very high marks (90+) is very reassuring indeed: this is always a demanding paper, pretty close to GCSE level, and this level of performance encourages us that many of these boys will go on to make a success of their Classics at Tonbridge. Our highest-achieving boys often take a joint Latin-Greek GCSE course, taking Latin GCSE in Year 10 and Greek in Year 11; the Latin II scholarship boys are especially well-prepared for such a course, which is partly why the bar is set so high on this scholarship paper.

The connected translation passages in Section A and Section B, on Claudius’ invasion of Britain, seem to have presented few problems of overall comprehension of the sequence of the events narrated (in that sense they differed from the Latin II passages in 2024). Specific elements which proved difficult in Section A included: the verb opprimerentur; the translation of perfect passive participles in general, and the ablative absolute custodibus relictis in particular; the meaning of posuerant; recognition of superlatives (regular or irregular).

Some elements which proved difficult in the Section B Translation section included: the idiom quam celerrime; the words simulac, validissima, audebit, mirabantur and nonnullis; again, perfect passive participles; and the meaning of cum with a subjunctive verb. Overall one of the key things for candidates to bear in mind is the importance of being as precise and accurate as possible in their translations: for example, conveying precisely what the superlative maximam means (not simply ‘a lot’). Another is attention to core basics: verb tenses, noun cases (esp. when identifying subject and object), singulars and plurals – plenty of marks are lost in these areas even by very good candidates.

Four intrepid boys chose prose composition rather than the second translation; they performed really impressively, all scoring a raw mark of 74/83 or higher on a task which is harder than anything linguistic they will face at GCSE. They had clearly been taught extremely well, and with real attention to detail.

The one candidate who sat the Greek paper performed at a high level in all parts of the exam (scoring 88%).

GREEK

DIVINITY

Julian Dobson, Head of Divinity

Julian.Dobson@tonbridge-school.org

There was an impressive range of responses to this year’s paper and it was good to see boys tackle the questions with flair and thought. The strongest essays were distinguished by their focus on the topic and ability to wrestle with the question and give some form of personal reflection. For example, it was excellent to see boys argue in a nuanced manner, ‘there is no right answer to this question…’ or, ‘I think there are two answers…’

Some repeated weaknesses were:

• Rapid fire paragraphs, often with philosophical content that was not explained - name dropping Kant is not impressive on its own!

• Paragraphs with no argument or evaluation.

• Lengthy introductions which essentially said they were going to answer the question.

• Veering off from the question to answer a question on a related topic.

Question 1: This produced some interesting answers, though a few did slip into storytelling mode. There were interesting reflections on the relationship between faith and madness; some arguing they are similar, others the opposite.

Question 2: Again, there were some good answers here. Some struggled to find reasons why Jesus was crucified. Others successfully balanced the historical with the theological.

Question 3: Candidates argued against this in a variety of ways. Some cited the 10 Commandments as a unifying code, others hinted at a social contract. One or two argued that most would agree, if they did indeed follow their own ethical code. Kant and Utilitarianism were deployed here by some, with varying success.

Question 4: This question produced some very interesting answers. Some reflected on the nature of happiness, others on whether religion’s role included happiness in this world and some challenged that notion that the connection between money, happiness and the ‘root of all evil.’

Question 5: It was good to see a range of world religions cited in discussion and it was good to see a range of different conclusions reached.

Question 6: This was a difficult question, but it was done very well. Some pointed out that it would be ridiculous for atheists to pray, but others reflected on the nature and benefits of prayer which they argued should encompass people of all beliefs and none.

Question 7: Not all candidates understood what human nature is, some talked about humanity in general. Others did and bounced the concept of original sin off more positive interpretations of human nature.

Question 8: Some candidates were strong advocates for freedom of speech, but nevertheless did give useful counter arguments, often drawn from current affairs and religious notion of blasphemy.

Overall, an impressive cohort who wrote with real passion about the subject. We look forward to nurturing their interest in Philosophy and Theology in the years to come.

ENGLISH

Nicholas Waywell, Head of English

Nicholas.Waywell@tonbridge-school.org

PAPER 1

Section A: Poetry Comprehension

A useful tip here is always to look at the title of any poem, often key in setting tone of an idea. There was intelligent exploration of the paradox of why a black hole would ‘empty’, and good analysis of the simile of the moons as marbles ‘in a smashed jar’. For Question 2, many candidates helpfully focused on how the sound imagery of ‘screams’, ‘howling’ and ‘squawking’ added to the sense of chaos, the violence of the metaphorical ‘whip’ of the solar flares, and the surreal imagery of a constellation ‘squawking past’. Question 3 was a helpful ‘differentiator’ for top scripts and produced some of the most impressive responses, which recognised the combined sense of destruction and rebirth suggested in the final stanza: a number noted the significance of the poem concluding with the word ‘hope’.

The quote ‘the great howling ‘O’ of the/Man in the moon’ builds a picture of what the man in the moon looks like in the reader’s head – is not easy to reward, as no real analysis or explanation of how the imagery works is conveyed.

The image of ‘the great howling ‘O’ of the Man in the moon’ is especially effective as the onomatopoeia of ‘howling’ suggests the man in the moon is suffering as the universe ends – is much easier to reward, as the candidate has explained the impact and meaning of the simile, as well as embedding technical terminology (onomatopoeia) into their response.

Section B: Prose Comprehension

Again, candidates responded impressively to this beautiful piece of writing. For Question 1 most candidates identified the oddness of the sun rising ‘for the seventh time that day’ and the worrying metaphor of the craft as ‘a burning bullet’. For Question 2 there was intelligent commentary on the ‘exotic’ animal imagery and the oddness of ‘spectral’ gloves, while in Question 3 stronger candidates noted the language of colour and richness (‘azure’, ‘bejewelled’, ‘burnishes’). It is always rewarding to see students write on character, and the best response noted the unusual nature of Nell being ‘consoled’ by nothingness and commented on her surprising desire to ‘reel out some thousands of miles’ into space, sometimes linking this sensitively to her childhood dreams of flight and escape.

In summary:

• Wonderful to see a balance of creative thought and close analysis.

• Good to see some key skills (point + evidence + analysis) and embedded quotation already in place.

• It is always good to see touches of individuality and thought: candidates should not be afraid to express thoughts and feelings about the writing.

PAPER 2

There was a great blend of story-writing styles and techniques on view in this year’s Scholarship Paper 2 compositions, and it was, as ever, a delight to see how imaginative writing is being encouraged at so many prep schools and how stimulated the pupils are by the process. Some titles were far more popular than others this year, with ‘The plants all lay dead’ and ‘Fog everywhere’ seemingly the most interesting prompts, with the odd ‘Ruined space station’ and a lone ‘Guitarist’.

Every candidate chose to wrote creatively rather than in non-fiction mode. The question sheet noted that ‘descriptive power and/or characterisation is rewarded more than complexity of plot’ but this should not be taken to mean that a lengthy piece of description alone, sometimes without any attempt at characterisation or narrative development, is what is being sought. Such purple passages can be too easily prepared in advance and shoe-horned into one of the available questions. Rather, we are seeking to encourage appropriate time being taken to develop a sense of setting as well as character, with some narrative movement. Those stories with a mature sensibility in the control of these elements were the most successful. Similarly, while there is reference in the advice for candidates that they should display imagination in ideas as well as, amongst other things, imagery too often the use of similes feels forced, and candidates should not be told to include florid figurative comparisons as a matter of course. These more often detract from the stylistic balance, rather than adding to it meaningfully.

Students who have been taught to enjoy writing for the ability to tell a good story tend to write better than those given a list of lexical effects to include, come what may.

ADVICE FOR FUTURE CANDIDATES

• Try to give your stories a human angle, concentrating on developing a first person perspective or third person overview of a character.

• In your planning time, structure your narrative so that neither too much nor too little happens. It is fine to focus on one thing happening, in detail (but not nothing happening, even if beautifully expressed!).

• As a general rule, ideas are more important than style. Tell an original, interesting story, and avoid over-writing with two or three adjectives per noun and exaggerated use of similes.

• Marks are not taken off for poor spelling, punctuation and grammar unless the accumulated mistakes serve to distract from the style and structure of the narrative. Proof-reading at the end to correct too many mistakes is therefore important.

• Enjoy your story-telling! Practise structuring a narrative so that character, setting and events all shine through.

FRENCH

William Law, Head of Modern Languages and Head of French

William.Law@tonbridge-school.org

27 candidates sat French I, with eight also taking the optional additional French II paper. All candidates, whether taking French II or not, also sat an oral. The basic format of the oral is the same for all candidates, and examiners will attempt to push each individual candidate to their “limit”. French I includes one listening comprehension exercise, one reading comprehension exercise, and one writing exercise; French II includes a set of sentences for translation into French, and a grammar gap-fill exercise; and the oral includes discussion of a picture card, followed by unprepared questions based broadly on defined Common Entrance topic areas.

FRENCH I PAPER

The listening passage this year took the form of a series of news bulletins, grouped under topic headings, as on a radio. There were two comprehension questions attached to each of the five messages. The candidates had two minutes to read the questions at the start of the paper; and then each message was read twice, with a 30-second gap in between the first and the second reading. Candidates can

make notes or write answers at any time during the test; indeed, they should be encouraged, when practising this task, to use the questions provided to anticipate a sense of the narrative of the passage and check carefully to see what sort of answer (e.g. a name, number, date) is required.

Unfortunately, the member of staff who conducted the exam informed the candidates (erroneously) that they should answer the listening comprehension questions in French, rather than in English. We assessed the candidates’ responses according to the mark scheme, and we rewarded recognisable misspellings. Interestingly, the average score on this section of the exam (with answers in French) was exactly the same as last year’s average score – but we then adjusted the marks up further to take account of this error. We have already edited next year’s papers to make it clear that answers in the listening and reading comprehensions should be in English.

LISTENING

Q1: Almost all candidates were able to recognise the correct answer, une voiture, here.

Q2: Most candidates were able to provide three (of the four possible) details, and answer this question correctly. Lunettes on its own (as opposed to lunettes de soleil, in the text) was not accepted.

Q3: Few candidates seemed to recognise the adjective écossais.

Q4: Most candidates understood that the fact that it was this director’s tout premier film that made the win surprising.

Q5: Some candidates focussed on the word suspecte in the phrase valise suspecte, and so a good number of answers reflected the consequential assumption that there was some sort of criminal at the airport. Given the error outlined above, we accepted valise or valise suspecte on its own (i.e. it was not necessary for candidates to form a sentence with a verb). However, with answers in English, candidates are advised to make their answers as specific and unambiguous as possible.

Q6: Most candidates got the right answer here. Some heard the neuf of dix-neuf, so suggested 9am or 9pm. Candidates should be aware of the French 24-hour clock.

Q7: Almost all candidates got the right answer here, which showed pleasing understanding of larger numbers and knowledge of comparatives and time expressions.

Q8: Most candidates were able to provide one (but not two) of the three details given. The most commonly understood was the notion that la nourriture est rare. A common misinterpretation was that il n’y a qu’une seule toilette fonctionnelle meant that there were no (working) toilets at all.

Q9: A pleasing number could link un quart to 25%; the most common incorrect answer was 20%.

Q10: Lots of candidates could recognise (and convey) the notion of les dépenses militaires et de défense (either on its own was considered a comprehensive enough answer). However, a good number fell into the trap of listing one of the other priorities (e.g. l’éducation), i.e. not the first priority. This is a common type of distractor in listening and candidates should practise questions that test this sort of skill. The reading passage concerned Félicette, a stray Parisian cat who was the first feline launched into space. (The candidates were given a contextual line in English at the start of the article.)

READING

Q1: The term “exactly” in the question indicates a need for a piece of specific information. Either “courageous/brave dogs”, or “(courageous/brave) dogs who have travelled into space” was accepted.

Q2: This question was well done, though some candidates took tempérament to mean “temperature”.

Q3: This question was well done, and most candidates were able to convey two of the required details. Expression in English was sometimes a little mangled (though if we could identify the key information, we awarded the mark); however, candidates are reminded of the need to express themselves clearly, accurately and (ideally) succinctly in English.

Q4: The term cérébrale, which candidates needed to understand to pick up this mark, was not recognised by as many as we might have thought.

Q5: There were some awkward renderings in English, but credit was given where communication of a key idea was achieved.

Q6: This was very well done: most candidates were able to come up with a suitable.

translation for une fusée. This question tests explicitly a skill that candidates will have relied on throughout this exam: making meaning (using logic and context) out of unfamiliar words. It is a vital skill to develop amongst your candidates.

Q7: Fewer candidates than we expected might have done picked up a mark here. Some candidates suggested other ways (which, although sensible, were not in the passage) in which Félicette’s experiences may have differed to those of a typical astronaut, and although some did reflect broader understanding gained from other parts of the text, we could not, of course, reward these.

Q8: The answer we had in mind was, “She stayed perfectly calm (during the journey)”; though because of the verb subir in the text, implying that she underwent and dealt well with an ordeal, we also accepted, “She underwent (OWTTE) forces up to 9.5g”.

Q9: Almost all candidates were able to recognise how Laika was subsequently honoured; but only a couple could extract meaning from the sentence about Ham. A common interpretation was that there was an exhibition about him in the International Space Hall of Fame, though we needed to see that the candidates had understood enterrement to get the mark.

Q10: The average score for this question was 2/4, with the second part of the underlined segment proving easier to decode for most candidates. Candidates are encouraged to work out the sense of the segment and concentrate on rendering it appropriately into English, rather than trying to translate word-for-word (which, as we know, rarely works!). Candidates should always read their answer carefully to make sure it makes sense. The writing section invited candidates to

reflect on a trip – real or imaginary. There were some outstanding responses that showcased a wide range of topic-specific vocabulary and very secure command of the main three tenses, in addition to, for example, the conditional. Sometimes the nuances of some of the bullet points were not fully addressed, which meant that some responses strayed into “all-I-know-about-X” territory. This was most evident in the second bullet point, where candidates often struggled to explain why they decided to go on a trip. The last bullet point was sometimes dealt with more superficially than the others, which gave some essays the impression of fizzling out towards the end.

ORAL

We really enjoy being able to interact with the candidates one-on-one during the oral part of the exam, and there were some excellent performances. We recognise that this – as for our own IGCSE and A level candidates – can be a nerve-wracking process, but we do feel it’s an important one. The best candidates expressed themselves with enthusiasm, clarity and confidence, providing additional detail and often including an additional tense (usually by invoking a comparison: e.g. “Normally… but last week…”). There were few instances of candidates not understanding questions (we are always happy to repeat or rephrase for clarity), but we could recommend helping candidates to practise identifying different question words and tenses (often a question will have two clues as to the tense that needs to be used in an answer: the verb itself and a time expression, like le week-end dernier, or en général). Strong candidates used or mimicked structures or verb forms that we employed in our questions.

This is always difficult paper, but there were some impressive responses from this year’s cohort. In Section A, sentences c., d., e., f., g., h. and j. were rendered particularly well; cette in a., the si construction in i., the après avoir construction in k., and vocabulary (“stay in bed”, “sore throat”) in l., proved challenging. L’histoire de la France m’est intéresse (or moi est intéresse) were common approaches to m.

In Section B, gaps 1., 2., 3., 4., 7., 8., 11., 15., 16. and 17. proved the most straightforward. In 6., most candidates wrote préféré, but failed to make the agreement. Correct answers to 13., 14., 18., and 19., were rarely (if ever) found. Interestingly, candidates who had used si correctly in sentence i. of Section A didn’t always recognise that it needed to be used here, too. It should be emphasised that any grammatically correct answer will be awarded, as long as it is also logical in the context of the sentence: so, for example, for 17., monuments was acceptable, but endroits (de + consonant needed) or musées (they are not museums) were not.

RESOURCES FOR TEACHERS

I have created a folder on Quizlet with a simple vocab list for describing photos, as well as lists of key vocab from the 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 French I papers, which can be accessed via this link: https://quizlet. com/Bilingwill/folders/tonbridgescholarship/sets

We remain very open to and interested in collaborating with feeder schools; we would love to come and visit you in your school and see what you do, and we have also run scholarship masterclasses and French discovery/ activity mornings, either here at Tonbridge or at feeder schools. Do get in touch if this would be of interest.

CLOSING REMARKS

Please do not hesitate to contact me for more (or more specific) feedback, or to discuss any aspects of this year’s examination or this report; and thank you for your careful preparation of your candidates. With thanks to my colleagues involved in examining the oral component or assisting with the delivery of the listening component of the exam: Jade Fonteneau and Mélanie Brenchley; and to the Admissions department, and particularly Rachel Hearnden, for their administrative support.

I am leaving Tonbridge School at the end of this year. It has been a pleasure administrating the French scholarship exam and working with you and your bright, talented pupils for the last seven years. I wish you and them luck in your future endeavours. My superb colleague, Jean-Patrick Vieu, is taking over as Head of French from September, and can be contacted at: jeanpatrick.vieu@tonbridge-school. org.

GEOGRAPHY

Chris Battarbee, Head of Geography

Christopher.Battarbee@tonbridge-school.org

Section A yielded strong responses from the majority of candidates. They are clearly a capable cohort, and found this topic more accessible than students found in some previous years’ resource sections.

SECTION A

Question 1:

Candidates answered this question well and were able to read the resources despite there being quite a lot of information to process. The figures quoted from the map were accurate and the candidates were good at describing the location and impact of wildfires. Data and patterns were referenced.

Question 2:

Candidates were able to infer from the resources and their own knowledge from recent news stories, reasons as to why the wildfires might have occurred. Higher scoring answers referenced the destructive nature and explained why they were so widespread. These responses were a little shorter than question 1.

Question 3:

Candidates were able to make appropriate links to climate change and the nature of wildfires as well as other hazards. Responses mentioned tropical storms, tornadoes and other hydro-meteorological hazards in terms of frequency and severity. This question allowed them to bring in their own geographical knowledge. Some responses were a bit brief and I think candidates may have started feeling time pressure at this point in the exam.

SECTION B

This year saw a noticeable improvement in the quality and length of essays submitted in Section B of the Geography paper. Many candidates demonstrated better time management, allowing them to develop more substantial responses. Those who took the

time to plan their essays tended to perform significantly better, producing more coherent and analytically developed work. In general, the stronger essays were at least a page long, which allowed candidates to explore their ideas fully and demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic. Candidates who incorporated detailed case studies and used accurate geographical terminology were rewarded with higher marks. These elements continue to be key indicators of a high-quality response.

Question 1: Tectonics

The tectonics question was the most popular choice among candidates, and responses generally demonstrated a solid grasp of relevant case study material. Many candidates effectively described antiearthquake structures and other engineeringbased mitigation strategies. However, while these physical responses were well explained, the strongest essays went beyond engineering solutions; the top-performing candidates discussed the importance of education, community preparedness, and disaster planning in reducing the overall impact of tectonic hazards. These more holistic approaches showed a deeper understanding of hazard management and were rewarded accordingly.

Question 2: Flooding

The flooding question was another popular choice, and many candidates were able to provide detailed accounts of flood events, including the scale of flooding and the extent of the damage caused. The level of

descriptive detail in these responses was generally strong and demonstrated good case study knowledge. However, a common weakness was the limited discussion of the role of climate change. Given its increasing relevance and direct link to the frequency and intensity of flooding events, it was surprising that few candidates addressed this point. Incorporating climate change as a contributing factor would have strengthened responses by showing greater awareness of the broader causes and context of flooding.

Question 3: Physical and Human Geography are two separate disciplines

This question was not a popular choice, but those who did attempt it generally performed well. Candidates produced some excellent arguments, demonstrating strong critical thinking and an ability to engage thoughtfully with the conceptual nature of the topic. The quality of writing was notably high, with many essays displaying a clear structure and well-developed points. However, a common issue was length — several responses, while well-argued, were too short to explore the topic in sufficient depth. Extending these essays would have allowed for more nuanced analysis and stronger evaluation.

Question 4: Manufacturing location

The manufacturing location essay was tackled by a smaller number of candidates, but those who chose it generally produced strong responses. The boys who attempted this question clearly understood the topic and were able to identify and explain a good range of relevant location factors. In some cases, the answers leaned towards being a little list-like, with factors presented in succession without much development or linkage. However, it was evident that the candidates

knew their material and were confident in their responses.

Question 5: Transport sustainability

This was a solidly answered question, with candidates showing clear evidence of having studied the relevant case study in detail. Responses generally demonstrated a good level of understanding and an ability to apply knowledge effectively to the question. However, there were moments where some candidates showed uncertainty about the meaning of sustainability, occasionally confusing it with general improvements to transport rather than focusing on long-term environmental, economic, and social impacts.

A relatively small number of candidates provided fieldwork reports as part of their application, and where these were exceptionally good, they assisted us in deciding final grade decisions for candidates who were very close to grade thresholds.

We felt this was a strong cohort, and that the exam allowed students to demonstrate their learning and geographical insight. We look forward to teaching these candidates next year.

HISTORY

Noah Hillyard, Head of History Noah.Hillyard@tonbridge-school.org

Candidates were given 10 minutes of reading time at the beginning of the exam, and 1 hour to complete the paper. Candidates were advised to spend c. 35 minutes on Section A (the source section) and c. 25 minutes on Section B (the essay).

SECTION A

Question One

This question asked students to read and compare two sources which gave different accounts of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty itself had been defined and explained in the introduction at the start of the sources paper. Students should note that the question asked ‘how far’ the sources agreed, and they should therefore consider evidence for both sides of the question (that is, points of agreement and points of disagreement); students on the whole managed to do this. It is also good practice to provide evidence from the sources through quoting. There was no need to evaluate the provenance of the sources on this question. Often, answers described each source and then made a summative statement at the end comparing them. Making the answer comparative throughout is advised. The range of marks awarded for this question was 3-7, although there was one outlier who scored lower than 3, because he answered this question last and had clearly run out of time.

Question Two

This question asked students to examine a cartoon and consider what the overall message was. Many students took the source literally, failing to explore the caption of the source fully. At the top end, students correctly understood and explained that the source was made to ridicule Germany, or to highlight the hypocrisy of Germany, who were furious at reparations payments, yet stated they would have done much worse if they were the victors. Some answers focused on provenance, using it effectively to contextualise further the message of the

source. Some students strayed from the focus of the question, looking at whether the source could be trusted. The range of marks awarded for this question was 3-7, with again one outlier scoring lower than 3, with the question answered last.

Question Three

This question asked candidates to use all the sources and the introduction to consider whether the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Germany. Some candidates adopted a source-by-source approach here, while others grouped sources – either approach could work. At the top end, there was some consideration of the utility of the sources, with interesting comments made about how much we could trust/not trust sources. At the lower end, sources were simply quoted and/ or paraphrased without a clear link back to the question. Many answers used the information from the introduction effectively. Not all answers were able to examine every source. The range of marks awarded for this question was 2-9, although theree was one outlier who scored 0 on this question, as it wasn’t answered.

SECTION B

This section asked students to write an extended piece. There were 2 ‘historical’ questions and 1 more philosophical question. Question 1 was the most answered question, and candidates wrote answers on a range of historical figures, including William I, King John, William III and Napoleon. At the top end, students engaged with the question, used

specific examples from the individual’s life (whether as a ruler or in battle) and continually referenced the personal qualities the leader displayed, linking back to whether their success was due to luck or not.

Generally, in every answer, the knowledge of each chosen figure was excellent, but at the lower end, students simply wrote an account of the career of their chosen historical figure, failing to evaluate whether their achievements were due to luck.

Question 2 was the second most commonly answered question. Topics ranged from the Peasants’ Revolt, to Stalingrad, to the Industrial Revolution. Despite excellent knowledge on show, some students struggled to engage with the question and simply described the changes that had occurred in their chosen period, rather than constructing an argument about what significant changes emerged from the event. Having said that, there were some excellent analytical answers that were able to explain significant change, with some distinguishing between short-and long-term changes.

Question 3 was the least commonly answered question, but those who did answer it performed well. Strong answers used specific events in history (for example the French Revolution) to analyse whether economic factors were the most important driver in history and then used other events to weigh up the merits of other factors, for example politics or religion. All answers then featured an evaluative conclusion linked back to the question.

The range of marks awarded for Section B was 8-15 (one student scored 3, but this was due to the fact he ran out of time).

MATHS

Owen Elton, Head of Maths Owen.Elton@tonbridge-school.org

Both papers were modelled closely on those set during the last three years and resulted in a similar spread of marks. Overall, the grade boundaries were set slightly lower than last year to compensate for some of the challenging twists included at the end of questions. In general, candidates performed better on aspects of the questions common with those from past papers. This was expected.

Last year, the examiners’ report questioned the choice of some who opted for the second maths paper. I would echo that sentiment, particularly in the light of the increase to nearly three quarters of the cohort. Paper I contains some difficult questions for Year 8 pupils and the difficulty increases markedly from the outset of Paper II. There are candidates who, while displaying a good level of competence in Paper I, found Paper II a challenge too far; my concern is that the paper might prove a negative experience for some, which is not the intention.

A summary of the responses to each question is given below. I am grateful to my Deputy Heads of Department, Mr B D M Katz and Mr X Meng who shared the marking for Paper I and contributed the respective comments.

PAPER I

Most candidates were able to use the angle rules of a parallelogram to make a start to this question. The simultaneous equations that resulted were fairly straightforward for most candidates to solve, though many made simple mistakes with the algebra.

Almost all candidates were able to develop a successful strategy to tackle the question. Most mistakes arose from calculator errors rather than a poor misunderstanding of unit conversions.

Part a involved some tricky ratio work which nearly all candidates struggled with. Many found the solution using trial and improvement whereas an algebraic approach is expected in scholarship papers. Part b was more accessible for candidates, with the majority managing to form the simultaneous

equations to solve. Working with decimals tripped up some candidates however, resulting in many making mistakes.

Q4

All bar a few candidates were able to substitute numbers into the given equation and nearly all candidates were able to receive full marks for this question.

Q5

Many candidates were able to do part a using their knowledge of isosceles triangles, and a good proportion of them were able to do part b as well using algebra. Some candidates, in part b, just substituted in a different value for x which, of course, is not sufficient proof.

Q6

Part a asked candidates to “show” that the length was 10 and the majority of candidates verified that result by using it. This simplified greatly the algebra which was not the point of

the question.

For part b, candidates could use the length and found it much easier. A number of candidates were not able to find the area of an equilateral triangle by partitioning it into two right-angled triangles.

Parts a-d were answered very well. The quality of the substitution and graph plotting was high. Very few students managed part e which required the recognition that a 30,60,90 right angled triangle is half of an equilateral triangle.

There were many good answers for most parts of a where the most challenging aspect was to find the side length of a square and hexagon from their diagonals. Part b required a much deeper knowledge of algebra; only

a few students attempted it and only one candidate completed it successfully.

This question was very well answered with the pattern being identified by most candidates. One common error was writing 260, rather than 2602 as the answer to part c.

Q1

This question split the field with most candidates unable to rearrange an equation of the form to make either b or c the subject without neglecting the -1 term during multiplication by c. The final part of the question gave a range of values and asked to find the maximum value another variable might take. Very few investigated what might happen at the extremities of this interval.

Candidates found this question very challenging with few making any inroads into part a. A significant number attempted to add two or more of the simultaneous equations together. In general candidates were nor particularly comfortable dealing with ratios (in fractional form) between two variables.

There were some good attempts at this question although, quite often, it was difficult to follow what candidates were calculating. It is well worth using the labels given in the question to describe the incremental areas and lengths being calculated. I was particularly pleased that there were a couple of attempts at using area scale factors to solve part b, although neither of these quite made it to a complete solution. Candidates using a more, slightly less efficient, direct algebraic approach were more successful.

Parts a to c in this question were answered reasonably well but candidates found Part D very difficult. For a convincing answer, candidates needed to spot that was equivalent to 4 , and subsequently that equivalent to Only one or two candidates managed this.

Q5

This question resulted in the greatest quantity of solutions being awarded full marks. A number of correct strategies to accomplish the final part were provided.

Q6

Parts a to d were well answered in this question. In part e, very few candidates were successful. Some didn’t spot that the scenario had changed and the previous formula was not valid. Most were unable to appreciate that average speed is equivalent to the ratio between the total distance and the total time. Many erroneously found the mean of the two speeds.

Q7

There were a couple of complete answers to this question and candidates were generally successful until Part D. The final part invited candidates to use their previous calculations tofind the sum of the first 100 square numbers. There were candidates who gave the correct final sum but with no method; in these cases, it was assumed that they had used their calculators for the entire computation, which was not permitted in the question.

SCIENCE

Nick Waite, Head of Science Nick.Waite@tonbridge-school.org

PAPER 1

Highest mark = 80%; Lowest mark = 27%; Mean mark = 52.4%; Standard deviation 12.9%.

Every candidate was able to attempt some part of all the questions. In general, candidates found it difficult to interpret the graph in question 2, and to draw a results table in question 3 but those with an overall understanding of the design of experiments and the techniques used in practical work performed well in this paper. Answers to question 1 were impressive, with candidates showing good prior knowledge. Some candidates were unaware that a resultant force upwards will cause a falling object to slow down, suggesting that a resultant force upwards meant the object was moving upwards.

All candidates tried to present their calculations clearly and included enough points to warrant the number of marks allocated to the question.

Specific Questions:

Q1(a) Almost all candidates commented on the fuel saving in having only the second stage rocket travelling into space.

Q1(b) Candidates offered thorough answers to this question, although sometimes repeated the same point. Any two points were accepted, including less damage compared to landing in the sea, as well as removing the time to recover and return the booster to the launchpad.

Q1(c) This question was answered well, with almost all candidates referring successfully to the distance referenced in the second

paragraph on page 2.

Q1(d) Candidates were expected to say that the assumption of a constant acceleration is unreasonable because the strength of gravity will decrease as the rocket climbs higher. However, any reasonable answer was accepted, including the mass of the rocket would decrease as the fuel is used up.

Q1(e) Only half of the candidates scored two marks, finding it difficult to convert both the distance into metres and the time into seconds. Often, the boys would only convert one but not the other.

Q1(f) Good candidates explained that the rocket was having to work against gravity when rising, but only the best described how the resultant forces compared on the way up compared to the fall back to Earth. Credit was given to those who referenced terminal velocity on the descent.

Q1(g) The vertical speed of descent would decrease. The second mark was awarded for explaining the effect of the force of wind, with candidates given credit for stating it caused a sideways motion or for describing an (anticlockwise) rotation.

Q1(h) Very few candidates explained the force from the booster engines would need to decrease steadily until it matched the booster’s weight, with many boys concentrating only on how the direction of the force from the booster engines would need to provide a force to the right to counteract the wind.

Q2(a) This question was answered successfully by a large proportion of the candidates, showing good knowledge of the terminology.

Q2(b) Almost all candidates provided the correct temperature.

Q2(c) Only the best candidates were successful in answering this question correctly. Whether they didn’t know the chemical formula for potassium chloride or failed to double the mass calculated from the graph because of the greater volume of water, only a small proportion of the boys scored well in this question.

Q2(d) Many candidates thought they needed determine the temperature above 10 oC when 2.5 g more solute would dissolve, forgetting the solution already contained the mass of solute they had calculated from part c.

Q2(e) Only half the candidates appreciated the solubility of carbon dioxide decreased as the temperature increased, and very few candidates clearly stated the temperature in Hawaii is likely to be higher than at a ski resort.

Q3(a) Candidates found this question difficult, failing to choose sensible headings or include units. Only a handful of students, appreciated the number of decimal places were inconsistent. Extra credit was given to those candidates who included an average mass deposited on the electrode using the Lego apparatus.

Q3(b) This question was difficult because it was hard to see the difference in scale from the photographs. Candidates were meant to comment on the small scale of the apparatus. However, credit was awarded for any sensible answer.

Q3(c) A significant number of students lost a mark for suggesting the mass would be measured using a “scale”. Credit was only given for scales, weighing scales, or balance.

Q4(a) This question was answered very well,

with candidates appreciating the number of seeds is a discrete variable.

Q4(b) Another question where most candidates scored both marks, describing the general trend correctly.

Q4(c) Using dead seeds as the control was appreciated by most students.

Q4(d) Candidates received this mark if they provided a valid reason, although those who suggested it was a good suggestion were more likely to receive credit.

Q4(e) Most candidates were able to provide two further factors to keep the same.

Q4(f) A surprising number of students failed to use the phrase “fair test”.

BIOLOGY

Bill Burnett, Head of Biology Bill.Burnett@tonbridge-school.org

PAPER 2 - BIOLOGY SECTION

Highest mark 17, Lowest mark 3, Average 10.1

The test discriminated well, with scores normally distributed, although the weakest did find the unusual contexts in which some of the questions were asked a challenge. Candidates should be encouraged to ‘have a go’ at solving problems by applying what they know in a new way, in order to demonstrate the higher-level thinking skills worthy of a scholar.

Q1(a) Although the majority of candidates understood that mitochondria are something to do with energy, with many referring to “the powerhouse of the cell”, rather fewer referred to respiration, and we’d prefer the correct terminology to what is now rather a tired cliché! For a third mark we were looking for something the energy might be for, such as movement, rather than just “staying alive”.

Q1(b) There were a lot of muddled food tests using Benedict’s or biuret, and a lot of candidates wanted to boil the Euglena’s leaves, but as long they used iodine and obtained a blue/black or purple result that was good enough for two marks.

Q1(c) Credit was given for pointing out that chloroplasts were for photosynthesis or making glucose, but not for telling us eyes are for seeing. We were looking for some kind of synergy, ideally that the eye spot would allow the Euglena to determine where the best light was and move towards it so that the chloroplasts would photosynthesise optimally.

Q1(d) A number of candidates correctly pointed out it couldn’t be either a plant or animal because it isn’t multicellular and scored a mark, and a number knew it was a single celled kingdom but couldn’t remember the name. We wanted to know it was a protist

(or protoctist or protozoan), because it’s single celled and has a nucleus. “The single celled kingdom” could have been bacteria, so no mark.

Q2(a) Lots of candidates scored for naming or describing pollination, and slightly fewer for pointing out this was a requirement the fruit formation farmers hope for. Some were very confused about nectar, and thought delivering it to a second flower would make the fruit sweeter.

Q2(b) This was well done, though some had arrows pointing the wrong way. There were some lovely drawings, but sadly not worth bonus marks!

Q2(c) The best answer was secondary consumer. Lots wanted it to be an apex predator, and though it was at the top of the chain they’d drawn there was no reason to assume no one eats hornets.

Q2(d) Many answers pointed out that climate

change was leading to warmer conditions that suited the hornets. The most sophisticated responses suggested flowers blooming earlier would lead to bees being common earlier in the year and that the early hornets were feeding on them. Others pointed out that, since the hornets were invading from Europe, they would naturally be spreading northwards, and still others that they would be spreading outwards from where they were most concentrated, in the South, to avoid competition. A small number of candidates thought the hornets were moving north to escape the heat, which didn’t make sense if they looked at the map. A fair number made no link to climate, and we also learned that it’s grim up north, a desolate wasteland of old abandoned industrial sites and massive urban centres with no room for flowers or bees or hornets.

Q2(e) This was very well answered, with most candidates pointing out the mimicry of stinging insects and linking that to deterring predators.

CHEMISTRY

David Robinson, Head of Chemistry

David.Robinson@tonbridge-school.org

PAPER 2 - CHEMISTRY SECTION

Minimum mark 5, Maximum mark 20, Mean 13.1

1 (a) This question sought to test students ability to interpret diagrams and make inferences from information given. The majority of students did this well, correctly positing that alloys are less malleable due to their lattice structure being disrupted and the layers being less able to move over each other. The marking point missed most commonly was the fundamental reason why the disruption occurs, namely that the atoms of the different elements in the mixture are different sizes.

1 (b) This question was relatively straightforward requiring candidates to count the total number of atoms and number of copper atoms and convert to a percentage. The large majority of candidates were able to do this correctly. A small number of students calculated 2/19 rather than 2/21 and an equally small number of students failed to give answers to the requested 1 decimal place.

1 (c) The question required candidates to complete a multi-step calculation which was designed to be challenging. Many candidates found the question difficult and there were several who were unable to attempt the question. However, there were approximately equal numbers who were able to navigate a way through the question and correctly calculate a radius. There were several different approaches that would allow a correct answer to be calculated (for example, calculation of density of the alloy to allow calculation of the volume of the sphere, or calculation of individual volumes of both copper and silver before calculating the total

volume of the alloy sphere), and different candidates employed each of these approaches. A number of candidates showed some evidence of working through the problem without getting a correct final answer but frequently the working was confused and could not be credited. Candidates are encouraged to lay working out more carefully including labelling what the numbers mean.

2 (a) This question challenged students to convert a chemical equation to a written description. Many students were able to correctly identify CO2 being produced during complete combustion instead of CO during incomplete combustion along with incomplete combustion requiring less oxygen. However there were a number of students for whom terminology was not precise enough. A number of candidates incorrectly identified oxygen as a product.

2 (b) This question sought to test the ability of candidates to carry out the reverse of part a, namely taking a description and turning it into word equation. The majority of candidates were able to do this although several incorrectly put carbon dioxide, or even oxygen, as products of the reaction. Candidates should be encouraged to read questions carefully; weaker applicants seemed to try to fit questions to pre-existing knowledge (e.g. what the products of combustion are) rather than carefully reading and assimilating new information.

2 (c) This question was almost universally answered correctly. Some students showed evidence of working through the formula of all alkanes up to C16H34 without working out there was a pattern that could be predicted. This will doubtless have cost them some time.

2 (d) This question testing how well candidates could spot patterns was answered very well, the formula of butene was almost universally correctly given and the vast majority correctly gave the name of propene. A small number of students incorrectly called the alkene with 3 carbon atoms propane.

2 (e) This question posed little challenge to the majority of candidates; it was pleasing that students were able to determine the general formula, probably as a result of being given the general formula of alkanes.

2 (f) This question tested candidates ability to manipulate data with graphs and many students did this well gaining full marks. A number of students chose not to draw a line through the points, instead trying to work out the difference in energy released between propane and pentane and halving this value.

2 (g) This question proved to be a good discriminator with just over a third of students scoring full marks, a similar number scoring 0 out of 2 and less than a third scoring one. The most common errors was with candidates failing to realise that the values for the bond enthalpy applied to the lines between atoms (i.e. the bonds) rather than the atoms themselves, hence coming up with an incorrect number of bonds being broken or formed.

The majority of those students who didn’t make this error went on to score full marks, however a significant proportion still went on to make an arithmetic error and got one of either the value for bonds broken or the value for bonds made incorrect. There was sufficient information in the question to allow candidates to check their answers; the values should be 1297kJmol-1 apart and this could have alerted candidates to the fact they had made a slip.

PHYSICS

Chris Powell, Head of Physics

Chris.Powell@tonbridge-school.org

PAPER

2 - PHYSICS SECTION

Minimum mark 4, Maximum mark 16, Mean 9.1

Q1 (a) An impressive number of candidates commented on how heat energy was transferred efficiently but failed to identify metal as being a good conductor. Some missed the idea that the sunlight was heating the metal pylon.

Q1 (b) This question was answered well, with almost all candidates arriving at the correct answer.

Q1 (c) Candidates found this question surprisingly difficult, with many boys confused by the unnecessary information provided in the diagram.

Q1 (d) The best candidates realised that people travelling down the mountain would reduce the work done by the electric motor. Unfortunately, some boys forgot that skiers would also be raised up the mountain on the ski lift at the same time, focusing solely on those descending the mountain.

Q2 (a) Very few boys correctly identified Force 2 as the Normal Reaction force, and many candidates stated Force 4 was “gravity” instead of weight or the force of gravity.

Q2 (b) This question should perhaps have been better split into two parts: calculate the weight of the skier and then calculate the pressure. A significant number of candidates incorrectly halved their calculated value of pressure and didn’t appreciate the pressure would be the same on each ski.

Q2 (c) Many candidates correctly identified the skier’s more aerodynamic shape would mean a higher speed.

Q2 (d) A variety of responses were acceptable, including friction or the normal reaction force.

Q2 (e) This was a difficult question, but any reasonable answer explaining the contrast in brightness was sufficient. The best answers referred to the shadows created when the snow is illuminated in direct sunlight.

Q2 (f) Since the light is scattered and light arrives at the snow from all directions, there are fewer shadows.

Q3 (a) Most candidates received both marks in this question providing they referred to the gravitational potential energy of the water in the dam being converted to kinetic energy.

Q3 (b) The best candidates referred to the increased tension in the blades or the additional force from the water on the blades.

Q3 (c) Most candidates appreciated the springs would extend but only two boys correctly identified the extension of the spring would decrease with distance from the shaft.

SPANISH

Mar Ponce Galán, Head of Spanish

Maria.PonceGalan@tonbridge-school.org

Ten candidates sat the Spanish comprehension, grammar and writing paper and were also assessed in speaking. Overall, performance was significantly stronger than in previous years, with the majority of candidates demonstrating solid linguistic knowledge, good comprehension, and confident oral skills.

PAPER 1

The listening assessment showed a generally good understanding of spoken Spanish. Most candidates performed well on all sections, including those where both questions and answers were in the target language. This marked a notable improvement in receptive skills compared to last year.

Reading comprehension results were also encouraging. The majority of candidates engaged well with both texts and were able to understand and manipulate vocabulary in context. While a few struggled with more idiomatic or nuanced expressions, basic comprehension was generally sound.

The grammar gap-fill, focusing on the present and preterit tenses, revealed a clearer grasp of verb conjugations than in previous years. The strongest candidates applied grammatical rules accurately and showed some flair in manipulating structures. However, a small number still struggled with agreement and irregular verb forms.

Writing task produced a range of results. The most successful responses were accurate, well-structured, and included a variety of tenses and vocabulary. These candidates also displayed creativity and style. Weaker

responses tended to lack range and accuracy, with some candidates failing to address all the bullet points.

The speaking assessment showed noticeable progress in spontaneous use of the language. Strong candidates communicated fluently and responded confidently to unexpected questions, often using a variety of tenses. A few candidates were more hesitant, relying heavily on memorised material and showing limited flexibility, but most could convey basic ideas with reasonable clarity. Very few showed significant difficulty with comprehension or expression in the oral exam.