Should I have coached my child for 11+?

I think there’s probably a middle ground between “years of intensive tutoring” and sending them into the exam completely blind.
We’re doing the 11+ at the moment with our twins and honestly the biggest thing for ours has just been familiarity with the style/timing of the questions and learning exam technique. Things like VR/comprehension speed are quite different from normal primary school work.
We haven’t done the 3x-a-week tutoring route some families seem to do. Ours do one tutor session a week, then shorter practice sessions at home using a mix of papers/books and online practice. The online side has actually been surprisingly helpful because it explains mistakes properly and flags weaker topics automatically, which meant we cut down quite a bit on extra tutoring/homework.
I do agree though that over-tutoring can backfire if a child ends up somewhere they then struggle constantly. But equally I think a lot of bright children probably miss out simply because they’ve never seen the question styles before.
Happy to share some of the resources we’ve been using if helpful.

You have every right to feel wounded, but I genuinely think it may have been for the best.
I've worked in both grammar and state schools. What most parents don't see from the outside is how many children struggle unnecessarily in selective schools, and how many end up paying for tuition all the way to GCSE, only to get the same results as children in good state schools, because the exams are the same.
It's not the school that makes the difference. It's the foundation underneath - Good SATs scores, supportive parents.
My older children went to private school until 11, then I put them in state school. That was always the plan. Their strong primary foundation carried them through university and into corporate careers - with no tuition. My nephews and nieces, had tuition and paid for private education. They were always stressed and got the same results, but then went to work for their parents.
Your daughter's score being that close tells you the ability is there. You haven't missed out - she probably hasn't either. Honestly, it's the parents who make all the difference, not the school. And you clearly care enough to be asking the right questions.
That's what will matter at GCSE. Not the school name.

Thank you! 😊😊

Nearly everyone coaches, unfortunately. I’m in the South East / London border and my son sat the test for the very competitive one near us. We had an outstanding secondary as a guaranteed place via a feeder school, so we only did one month of tutoring for him, and he didn’t get in. He got 9 x 9’s in his GCSE’s. DD decided not to sit, as didn’t want pressure. She did apply for 6th form, and would have got a place as she got all 9’s but pulled out on results days and stayed at her 6th form which I think has been best result for her. She starts her A levels next week.

I think most kids need some tutoring to understand how to do the exams, as it can be niche. I mean my kids were definitely capable of going, and would have kept up, but clearly my son didn’t have enough tuition. Had we not had such good back up options, i’d have probably started much earlier. A friend paid £200 a month for 2yrs to try and save on private fee and he didn’t get in. Her DD chose to go to same school as mine as she declined private, and did just as well academically (sure those connections from 25k a year school will come in handy though).

Sadly gone are the days of getting in on ability alone, but school are right that if kids are just tutored to pass a test, then they may not cope with the demanding workload.

No they arnt.
There are many reasons why some kids can excel at passing the 11+ and some don't. It doesn't mean they arnt smart, or clever. Many 'less smart' kids can do things the 'smart' kids can only dream of. Some of the stupidest people I know are 'smart' grammar school kids. Perhaps try not to pigeon hole at age 10.

Don’t feel bad OP. You didn’t put your child under years of pressure from
the age of 8 like many parents on here do. Poor kids. Tutored to within an inch of their life and when they scrape a pass they struggle and languish in the bottom sets of grammar school. What does that do to their confidence?

Bright kids will do well anywhere. And yes those in the top sets at the local comp are very much supported and stretched - it is like they are in a little bubble. Yet without the intense stress and pressure that can come with a grammar school - some children thrive in that environment many, many don’t.

Those in the top sets also get a lot of confidence from being top of the clsss. Getting awards, standing out. That wouldn’t happen at grammar.

You did the right thing I think. For what it’s worth.

My child was a couple of marks off passing the 11 plus. Zero tutoring. It's absolute nonsense. He did just fine.

Op if you are in the Gloucestershire grammars then the rest of the state schools are on par with many non selective areas. So not too bad. Plus even the worst areas here are much much higher in the socio economic scale than inner city areas and so there arnt the same issues. People round here are obsessed with the grammars. Yes - it does help. But a bright supported child will do well anyway and not every bright child will do well in the grammar environment. If you want to try again then you can. But don't make it be everything. It's really not .

Not really ironic. The entire system has changed since the 60s. Grammars are now pretty rare in most areas, so they've become "elite" due to high demand/low supply.

The days are long gone when virtually every town had a grammar, and in those days, yes, they were "social levellers" because there wasn't the same "High" standards to get in. In my town, we had one "sec mod" and one "grammar". The grammar took 40% of the town's kids, whilst the sec mod tool the other 60%. So it was a lot more "normal" for kids to get in without being tutored. In fact, the 11+ test was conducted in the primary school classroom, with no fuss, etc - it just "happened".

When there is high demand, there will be competition and standards will increase. Same with Church schools - they're often over-subscribed, so they have to use some kind of "points" system including church attendance to determine who gets the places.

I'm glad to hear that. And well done to him for getting a place!

Nail on the head.

Not only have they (at that age) not seen exam papers/questions like it, they're not accustomed to "timed tests" under the same pressure, and they won't have covered the topics tested in the 11+, some of which are done in the final year of primary after the 11+ test has been taken.

So, yes, if your child doesn't do several past papers and hasn't been "taught" the things they've not yet been taught at primary, you're setting them up to fail it.

Look on the bright side. Your child will have a better shot at university entrance if she does well at a state comp (plus "invisible" tutoring) than if she does well at a grammar - so you may have been helping her in the long run.

We did not pay a tutor when our DS sat the 11+. He was successful at 11+ without. We had him sit some practice papers we got online, so he was familiar with VR and non-VR, under timed conditions, so he got used to timing. Seemed to work. I'm not sure professional tutors offer anything magical.

The grammar school my son will attend in September had a lower pass score for PPG children and a slightly higher pass score for the others. My son is PPG in that he is considered ‘Ever 6’ - because we had to claim UC for two years after Covid after my husband was made redundant. We don’t claim anymore but apparently he remains entitled to PPG for 6 years after the last claim was made.
I didn’t organise a tutor because I didn’t want to put him under any pressure (and I doubt I could have afforded it) but I did some practice papers with him.
I’m not familiar with other grammar schools but his seemed to have some allowance for the scenario you described.

I think it’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone gets a tutor, everyone has to.

Donkeys years ago I read something about 11+ and tutoring. My memory is a bit hazy but I think it was comparing results in maybe Skipton and Knaresborough. One area tended to tutor and the other didn’t. Overall the numbers passing the 11+ were the same in each group, as you’d expect. It’s about all being in the same boat.

We had a tutor in Y5 for our DC because everyone else had one and we wanted them to be on a level playing field.

My child passed the 11+ with 20 points over the passmark. No place at the grammar as it goes on score he just missed out. I dont really agree with tutoring but I 100% wish I had done as to get such a high score with no tutoring (only a couple of weeks familiarisation) means he would easily have got a place with even just a little bit (only 2 marks off). It's not fair but you have to to keep up with everyone else who's taking it.

My daughter was the only one in her grammar school class who didn't have a tutor. She just did a few practice papers at home to get familiar with the format.
I'm glad she wasn't tutored. My reasoning was that she should get a place based entirely on merit. And there's a good chance a child who needs the head start of tutoring will struggle at a selective school.
Of course, I might have regretted my decision if she hadn't got in...

Yes that is totally wrong. And preventing state primary schools from doing anything that can help

Completely missed the point of grammars doingbthat

It is a bizarre system. The schools pretend they don’t need tutoring but behind the scenes most kids are being tutored some for several years. It’s all very hush hush.
I understand the primary curriculum focuses on greater depth not jumping to work a year ahead like they did in past.
My mum passed her 11+ but says she and a few children were put up a year and taken for special classes by headmaster in her state primary so tutoring was a thing in 1950s.
I tried to go for a middle balance with my dd but it is hard not to get sucked in. She was always a voracious reader, I can remember printing off a 11+ recommended book list but it was classics she was reading anyway and I’d enjoyed as a child. School just let them pick any books and didn’t steer at all.
She was assessed by a tutor Autumn yr5 and was pass standard in English and VR with no tutoring but needed tutoring to be taught maths. A mathematically inclined parent could have taught it.
Summer hols before we did 12 practice papers from books I bought off Amazon. So 2 a week. I felt this wasn’t too onerous but still helped her get her speed up and work out exam technique. When she got back to school she was shocked as all her friends sitting had done a lot more prep over summer.
She passed and enjoyed the school and did well academically. It’s not true a tutored child will struggle as vast majority are tutored.
I’m a guide leader and can usually predict who is going to pass, being a reader and general vocab are main indicators. I feel sorry for the girls withdrawn from all activities for several tutoring sessions a week when I can tell they aren’t likely to pass.

It's ironic that grammar schools were brought in as a social leveler, to ensure that bright children from lower earning families got the education they deserved, at no cost. I was one of those kids in the 1960s.

Now it's completely different. If you don't have parents who can afford tutoring, then that academic environment is all but closed to you.

In my SIL's area, kids are tutored for years, to get admitted to grammar school. Simply having some practice sessions would go nowhere near getting a place. SIL refused to be part of it, but fortunately was able to get my nephew and niece into decent secondary schools where they did very well.

I think you were naive op.
We are a grammar area. Most have some paid tutoring, some are coached to within an inch of their lives.
At the least parents will familiarise them with the format and do practice tests, there’s books you can buy.
In our area they need to know all yr6 maths by 3rd week of September. Unless someone teaches them the maths they won’t pass no matter how brilliant.
Verbal reasoning is also something they don’t come across in state schools and they get quicker as they practice.
Even exam technique like putting a cross in box, not spending too long on one question, putting an answer for everything needs to be taught to a 10 yr old.
Some state schools get around rules by running lunch club to prep them.
I think it’s cruel to put a 10 year old in a formal exam without seeing the format and having a chance to practice. I was 16 and doing my GCSEs before I sat an exam in a big hall in strict exam conditions, they are only 10.
I know an acquaintance who did just that. I think she was going for bragging rights - our Brian is so bright he wasn’t tutored at all. Poor lad had never even seen an example paper and completely broke down crying in the actual exam and had to be removed and he was horribly embarrassed. They ended up paying for him to go private.

You could have coached her and got her in. Had others not been coached their own children then she might have got in under her own steam - but who knows.

But coaching produces pressure to succeed - is pressurising an 10/11 year old right or sensible?

If she had got in its likely that she would have been in bottom sets and possibly struggled somewhat.

So you made your choice - which I'd support, The advice given was best for her, her mental health and well-being not to mention yours.

Like as not she'll be towards the top of sets in the school she's at in September - succeeding at school is a great confidence booster and rubs off in other areas.

Don't ever let anyone tell her she failed her 11 plus. She didn't, it's just that there were more children ahead of her than there were places. It's a cruel set up.

Just do the 13+ with some prep and go to a better school

We've moved to my husband's home country and DC is thriving in a school that goes from primary through to high school diploma. DC's a bright kid but I'm very glad to have removed them from the highly competitive state primary in Kent they attended until the end of Year 3. It was full of kids whose ultra-pushy parents had moved down from London specifically to get their DC into grammar school no matter their level of academic ability. Everyone bar no-one had their DC tutored and it made for a horrible atmosphere. Parents booked tutors when their kids were in Yr 1. I was told when DC was in Yr 3 that if I hadn't booked a tutor yet I'd left it too late. Sod that! I took and passed the 11+ myself many moons ago and remember hating being under pressure at such a young age, feeling like my whole future was hanging in the balance. We just did a few practice papers in school and I wasn't aware of anyone being tutored. In the intervening years the whole system has become severely skewed.

OP, your daughter will be fine at any school with the right encouragement. You haven't done anything wrong by not putting her under pressure at such a young age.

I know at my DC's grammar the teachers told the students that they are fortunate that for each subject at that school the teachers are trained in that field.