To NOT arrange for my child to be tutored for 11+?

I agree with OP. My son is taking the 11+ next month - he has not been formally tutored, but we’ve done practice tests at home and he’s sat 2 mocks run by the grammar school. If they have to be tutored so heavily then I don’t think grammar is right for a child.
for what it’s worth - atom isn’t tricky enough for the mocks my son sat: we’ve been doing Examberry and exam paper plus tests and cgp 10 min tests. We don’t sit verbal and non verbal in our area.
what will be will be - only you know if your child would respond to tutoring

I agree with OP. My son is taking the 11+ next month - he has not been formally tutored, but we’ve done practice tests at home and he’s sat 2 mocks run by the grammar school. If they have to be tutored so heavily then I don’t think grammar is right for a child.
for what it’s worth - atom isn’t tricky enough for the mocks my son sat: we’ve been doing Examberry and exam paper plus tests and cgp 10 min tests. We don’t sit verbal and non verbal in our area.
what will be will be - only you know if your child would respond to tutoring

It depends. Do you want them to get in? Every other child will be tutored, so if yours isn't, you're putting them in for a race and starting them some distance back from the starting line.

I remember being given practise tests to do at home, in my primary school, but that was all, only a few took it so there was no real preparation, but that was years ago.

I would get some old tests let them do them, like a proper exam and mark them, see how they do. I would have thought a few lessons from a tutor would be all they would need, just so they are not surprised by some of the questions.

I hate this "to an inch of their lives" thing. Always said by people who choose not to tutor, normally smugly as though people who tutor are trying to dress up their thicko children as clever. That, along with, "if they can't pass they just aren't smart enough".

We tutored DD. The 11+ is incredibly complex, and getting increasingly so. There are so many questions that you need to have seen before to understand what to do with, especially on a very tight timescale. I am very academic (think top of the class, educated to masters level, high IQ, etc) and couldn't manage loads of them on first sight. DD wasn't tutored "to an inch of her life", she was introduced to and practiced the main type of questions so she was familiar with them, and with how the test worked. This was done by a tutor as me and DH both work full time. As it happened she didn't pass (just!) - she's intelligent (her tutor was adamant she deserved to be in a grammar school) but unfortunately also really quite dyslexic and has issues with processing text. As such, despite being bright a test like the 11+ is almost impossible, even with extra time.

I hate the 11+!

My kids are both at grammar and neither had tutoring. They did, though, go to a good primary school. It’s definitely not a fair system.

You could do a free week of Atom learning now, and then pay for the rest of the month if you want to increase your child’s familiarity with the format and exam technique.

my children have been through selective exams and of course I helped them prepare when they were 10 years old. Not a huge amount, but a little bit makes a difference when the competition is so strong and children without preparation are at a real disadvantage.

Well you have expressed the reason I am against these schools. They provide private style education on the state for well off parents who can afford the tuition.

Your idea about it being a leveller is how it should be but unfortunately it isn’t. Plenty of children can be successful in it without tutoring. However, best chances are for those who are tutored which sucks.

I think it used to be a social leveller up to the 70s as most towns had grammar schools and more pupils (overall) went to them, there was also less (if any) tutoring and the 11+ test was done in mainstream schools, and generally covered work already done in the primary school beforehand. Back in those days, it would be the kids who were generally in the top third/quarter of the class who'd get a grammar place.

I agree with you OP that it is sad it has come to this. You are right, when the 11+/grammar school system was introduced it was meant to give a leg up to bright children from all backgrounds and improve social mobility.

The area I grew up in had abandoned it and gone comprehensive when I was that age; but PILs, who were both from very working class backgrounds, both got in to grammar school and I think it made an enormous difference to their career prospects and life afterwards.

These days, where it still exists, it seems to have become a perk for the sharp elbowed middle class who can afford to have their children crammed by tutors. It's a pity that the schools cannot devise a selection process that cannot be prepared for but can measure raw ability.

Locally to me, if you haven’t prepared, you have no chance. This doesn’t mean you need to have been tutored. But you do need to have practised the question types, you do need to know the layout, you do need to be used to working accurately at speed…
Here though a grammar school isn’t the only way to go well (ie very good comprehensives also available)

I'd say that most who get a GS place will have been "tutored" to some degree. Obviously some a lot more than others. Some of the subject matter hasn't even been taught at primary school by the time of the 11+ exam, so that puts the child at an immediate disadvantage if they've had no tuition at all.

At the end of the day, like all things in life (employment, relationships etc), it's a competition to win a GS place, and those who've had a lot of tutoring are more likely to get a higher score and therefore "win" a place than a child who's not. It's not as if it's a fixed pass/fail scoreline, because there's a limited number of places.

It all depends on the area. In some highly sought after schools, entry marks could be 90% plus but in some regions/areas, the entry mark may be 60-70%.

Personally, I don't think putting a few past papers in front of the child to do over the summer holidays is enough, however brilliant/bright the child is. Yes, they may get a "high" mark, but if others have been working harder/more on practice papers, they'll probably get a higher mark and secure the place.

It certainly isn't true that the grammar school system is a social leveller. The selection process recognises practice at least as much as it identifies raw ability. The majority of kids who do get in will have been heavily tutored. But if you have a decent comprehensive school near you, I can't see an issue really.

I would scrap grammar schools altogether if I could.

It depends on the type of primary education they've received. And how well they are versed in revising for and doing exams.
They cover things like verbal reasoning I think. That might not be something every primary school teaches. I would think if I could afford it then I'd want to give my kid every chance.

Your idea about it being a leveller is how it should be but unfortunately it isn’t. Plenty of children can be successful in it without tutoring. However, best chances are for those who are tutored which sucks.

If you care about it and want them to have a decent chance then they will need to be tutored.

Locally if you haven't been tutored you have no chance of passing.

Might be different in different areas.