angered by tuition for grammar school 11+

I agree with @LetItGoToRuin . We passed with no tutoring but only just and DD refused to go because some girls in her Primary had been tutored from Y1 and Y2 and formed a clique in the playground, not letting anyone not being tutored play with them. Mums were just as bad and used to sit gossiping about which kids they thought would go to grammar etc. These aren't even super selectives and get worse marks than the local Indies, which are not amongst the best in the country... I really think the pushy parenting bought out the worst in the kids and parents and makes the idea of grammars being social mobility tools redundant. There are now lots of kids struggling and developing anxiety because they can't keep up, made to keep tutors throughout school to stay in the top tiers, it's horrible and not what the system was designed for. I can only imagine it is highly frustrating for the teachers having to deal with the parents too.

@B202 I'm not sure reopening a 6-y-o thread it s a great idea. However, I'll respond.

I agree with some of your points.

Yes, tutoring in Y3-4 tends to be along the lines of consolidation of age-appropriate topics to strengthen the foundations.

Yes, a good work ethic will get a child (or adult) a long way, and certainly the world of work is not simply about being clever but much more about having the right attitude.

However, grammar schools are not aimed at ‘average but hard-working’ students. They are aimed at ‘bright’ students – the ones that will understand new concepts the first time round and won’t need to have them explained again and again and practised 100s of times. Lessons should move quickly to enable the subjects to be explored in much more depth than is demanded by the exam syllabuses – to really challenge bright minds.

Any average but hard-working student should be capable of achieving excellent exam results with good teaching, hard work, and possibly extra tutoring if the parents wish to provide it.

The issue I see is that, because of excessive tutoring, many average but hard-working students are getting into grammar schools, which means that lessons at grammar schools must move more slowly to ensure these students can keep up (regardless of additional home tutoring.) This means that the brighter students at grammar schools are not stretched as much as they could be. It also means that some naturally very bright students (that were not tutored, or only a little) are missing out on a grammar place because the average ones with 1000s of extra hours’ practice (driven by their parents) get the places.

My daughter (home tutored, not excessively, in Y5) is surprised to find herself one of the brightest in all her classes at a super-selective grammar. She can tell who has been excessively tutored. She does not feel she is surrounded by ‘bright minds.’

Whatever individuals might think of the grammar model, I think it is devalued by the excessive tutoring that goes on.

This is a really long thread that caught my attention as it kept coming up in my search for 11 plus prep. It is really surprising to see the number of people using the generic term 'heavy tutoring since 2/3 years'. It sounds as if its being claimed that the children are being tutored for year 5 concepts from year 3 onwards. I just wanted to highlight that an average child can grasp concepts however 'heavily tutored' only for his/her age group. If a child is able to get the concepts not meant for his/her age group via anyone - be it parent, tutor, school(less likely) then tutoring or not that itself means they are quite gifted and they should rightly be exposed to those concepts.
From what I have seen, tutoring in year 3 or year 4 is meant to practice the concepts of that year only so that the foundation is strong. I dont think we should blame or complain about anyone wanting to do that for their kids. Even the tutors in year 3/4 mostly use the available books (CGP/Bond etc )to practice which is widely available to anyone else not wanting to tutor and having the time to guide the child on practice.
If you have no tutoring available it will again not be fair to those whose parents don't have the time to look into their children's studies or read stories to them versus those who do on a daily/weekly basis(however little as each day or week goes a long way to build up the practice for a year). Here also you will see parents complaining about their 'clever' children falling behind just because they cannot give enough time as other parents. So it goes both ways.
In the working world, if you complain about others working harder than you and then achieving more than you just because you 'think' you are cleverer than them , you will be nothing but laughed at. No one has achieved anything only on the basis of cleverness
If children 'are ready' to put in the hardwork, that should not be discouraged. It only shows them the practical outcome of hardwork. On the other hand, I also agree that those not having access to tutoring due to resources are at a disadvantage. But this is the drawback of the system not providing the challenging environment in schools itself. Maybe there can be extra tutoring provided for kids in school itself for the identified 'gifted' kids , the same way that extra support is provided for pupils in lower sets. However, you cannot stop or blame anyone who wants to put in additional work based on the resources they have.

milkandcookie - you said "perhaps people should concentrate on helping their DC's to maximise results rather than bemoaning others for wanting to help their children, the system is fair if you are willing to muck him."

There is no way the present educational system is fair. Of course parents helping their children shouldn't be discouraged but it is not a level playing field - nowhere near and will never be in my life time.

milkandcookie - how many of those complaining can genuinely say they sit down for more than an hour a week to go over homework with the kids.

I have to admit, I have never spent any time sitting with my DC1 going over homework. They passed the 11 plus. I do sit with DC2 to assist with their homework but they have no hope of passing the 11 plus due to SEN.

seen alot of old and new comments even mentioning that some kids have degree educated parents and implying directly or indirectly that it gives the kids an unfair advantage. Well boo hoo, i was in a inner city school as a child and am (thankfully) degree educated my dp along with most of my friends is not.

Alot of people (not all) didnt care or enjoy education enough, perhaps people should concentrate on helping their DC's to maximise results rather than bemoaning others for wanting to help their children, the system is fair if you are willing to muck him. how many of those complaining can genuinely say they sit down for more than an hour a week to go over homework with the kids.

ZOMBIE 2010 THREAD

still the same sodding arguments though

@WitchOfTheWaste you are right about cloak and dagger. Some parents here won't even admit they have entered their child for the 11+. We turned up this year and knew a lot of the children who had never even mentioned it before. I had also been open about it from the beginning. We have a great comp here so I think opting for the Grammar route is like a dirty secret.

We're in Kent, and I'm quite open about the fact that our DS is going to a tutor once a week during Year 5, to get him used to the Kent Test questions and to cover off the maths stuff he won't study until Year 6. But I've found it amazing how cagey other parents are about it! If I mention (not in a 'show off' way, just casually eg if someone asks him for tea and I say sorry he can't that day as he's at his tutor), they look at me as if I've said something shocking. I dislike the grammar system and particularly the tutoring aspect, but I think it's made worse by the fact that people are so cloak and dagger about it. Plus the fact that they all say that really if it was just up to them, they'd really rather their child went to a down to earth comp - but their child is desperate to go to a grammar. And as soon a second they pass the 11+, all talk of choosing a comp goes out of the window.

Clavinova, why are you so tetchy? You said your DS1 was in an "academic private school" - so presumably you have no experience behind the scenes in a super-selective grammar?

Anger?
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that boys in super-selective grammar schools are all having tutors for Maths GCSE.

Teddy - don't walk away yet - I think you and I have bonded on this issue!

Clavinova - Gosh, why the anger? Have Teddy and I hit a raw nerve? The debate was over the unfairness and amount of tutoring in schools. It is rife, it is sad and it will probably never end. But don't expect your child to handle life well if you have tutored them through all the major challenges in their life so far. More time (and money?) spent on good mental health and physical health (sports) would be more beneficial. Head in a "test" book 7 days a week is no good.

Many children I know were/are tutored and I have experience of state, state grammar and indie. Teddy is correct, parents rarely admit their child has a tutor as they feel others will assume they are not that bright. What a ridiculous situation. All that pressure filters down to the child.

Do any of your DC actually go to super-selectives, Clavinova? I wonder...

And you are being quite personal in your comments, and I've not even knowingly come across you before? Why the ire?

Yes, tutoring is endemic. Who said it only happens amongst the grammar school educated? I would argue that many parents who paid for tutors from the age of 7/8 (and even younger sometimes) with their eyes on the prize (of a selective private/state school or much sought after comprehensive), won't suddenly down ambition tools - the tutoring will continue for the next academic/professional prize. Many parents won't admit to tutoring because it makes their children look less clever than they would like them to appear to be. It doesn't mean it's not happening, and it certainly doesn't mean that their DC won't spill the beans to their friends.

Walking away from this thread now.

Teddygirlonce
No I'm not. Did I suggest otherwise? I didn't

Yes, you did - you were implying that 3/4 of your ds' cohort at the super-selective grammar school obtained their As/As/7s/8s/9s because of tutoring and it wasn't a level playing field for your own ds. Are GCSE Maths and Sciences that* hard for super-selective grammar school boys? DS1 is Year 11 at an academic private school - we've heard of 1 boy having a tutor for 1 subject this year (a language).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all pupils get tutored across the board, in every subject????
Are they not?

Well funded, all ability schools are the only way forward and I say that as a former advocate of grammar schools

Of course, middle-class kids at all ability state schools don't have help from tutors or degree educated parents at GCSE/A level and no parents prep their dc for KS2 SATs, with an eye on the top sets at the local comps - perhaps all those KS2 practice books in WHSmith are a figment of my imagination?

Clavinova - unnecessarily snide comment ? No I'm not. Did I suggest otherwise? I didn't. And yes he did revise but perhaps not terribly effectively (not everyone is an exam-buster extraordinaire at 15/16). And he was predicted a Grade 8 in Maths so not sure what happened in the exam. Except that actually I do - he was naturally stronger on Humanities, always struggled with Maths and Sciences.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all pupils get tutored across the board, in every subject???? Many of DS's friends/cohort DID get tutored in what were deemed the important - for them - subjects (for future career prospects): Maths and Sciences specifically.

Well funded, all ability schools are the only way forward and I say that as a former advocate of grammar schools!

Astronuts, I think I've met my kindred spirit in you! I was very pro-grammars until very recently. I've really had my eyes opened by what happened with DS. DD not at a grammar school and theoretically not as academic. However, her school is more pushy with all the pupils and works them hard (not just the super bright ones who may or may not be getting extra help). I reckon she may end up doing better than him in her GCSEs!

The whole continued tuition 'underbelly' of education makes a mockery of some schools' stellar results in the league tables, don't you think?

I do come across parents who say they're not aware of children being tutored at the super-selectives. DS was aware of it from Year 7 and the practice continues in Year 12/13 too, seemingly.

*Teddygirlonce
Indeed DS didn't have any tutoring (or helicopter parenting) through years 7-11 which is possibly why his GCSE results were less stellar than 3/4 of his (super-selective) school cohort. It doesn't make for a level playing field, does it

Surely you are not blaming your ds's Grade 6 in Maths GCSE (at a boys' super-selective grammar school) on other kids having tutors? Did he actually do any maths revision?

We found ALL the other students in my DD's class at grammar had been tutored and many continued to be tutored throughout yrs 7 - 13

How do these grammar school pupils in years 7-11 fit in tutoring across 9/10 subjects? Wouldn't that involve 6-8 different tutors?

@Astronotus - no I think you're right that tutoring rife in Kent too. I was responding to the usual cries of "my son did 2 papers before the Kent exams and got in". In the Greater London world I'm part of, there are vanishingly few un-prepared children.
My DD is in y7 of a selective grammar (not 11+ area) so I read these posts about ongoing tutors with interest and naivity. We will categorically not tutor our DD. We did for entrance but only for a few months, then we DIY'd.
I have heard from several parents that the top selective schools in London are full of boys and girls being tutored, just to keep up.

Teddy, sounds like you and I are very similar in our parenting. Yes, my DD's was a superselective in a London borough. Lucky for her she is very self-motivated and scores well. But we found there was favouritism from the school towards the continually tutored pupils, ie., being feted, picked for uni outreach sessions and other extra events. Plus the tutoring parents were the most demanding of school. There is no level playing field in education and with governments and parents obsessed with league tables there never will be.
FanDabby - I disagree, many, many parents in Kent have their children tutored for the Kent test - so no level playing field there either.

Well funded, all ability schools are the only way forward and I say that as a former advocate of grammar schools!

We found ALL the other students in my DD's class at grammar had been tutored and many continued to be tutored throughout yrs 7 - 13

Ditto, Astronuts. Indeed DS didn't have any tutoring (or helicopter parenting) through years 7-11 which is possibly why his GCSE results were less stellar than 3/4 of his (super-selective) school cohort. It doesn't make for a level playing field, does it?

Always wonder what happens to the 'children' do once they go to university - do they still receive extra tuition?

There are grammars and there are grammars. If you live in Kent or Lincolnshire etc., you can get away with light or no tutoring as a quarter go to grammar.
If it's a selective school outside a true 11+ area (e.g. London, Essex etc.), the competition is fierce as there are often no catchment areas and only 5% get through. There are few - if any - children who get in without being prepared by parents, school or a formal tutor.
There is one London superlative where tutoring is prevalent and kids travel so far they don't socialise together outside school. There are mental health issues due to the pressure the PARENTS put on the children.

This is a very old thread but still a very relevant discussion. I'm a parent of grammar and non-grammar children who were never tutored. I did buy them the Bond books to work through for a couple of weeks before the exams. We found ALL the other students in my DD's class at grammar had been tutored and many continued to be tutored throughout yrs 7 - 13, some all day Sunday. Unsurprisingly the school is very high in the league tables and will do anything to retain its Ofsted outstanding. But and it is a big but, there were many mental health problems at the school due to the stress the students were under and many sad incidents. Some parents pushed their DCs too much in my view.

I think if someone can afford to give their DC the opportunity to attend a grammar or private they should not be 'put down' for it. For those that feel people spending loads on tuition gives the child an unfair advantage perhaps they should try home tutoring?

I think it would be naive and possibly negative to enter a child into a test such as this without the ample preparation needed, I know of a few kids that have ended up in a grammar school and each child had to work their socks of and not just for the one year.

Let me just say that I have got a Masters Degree and I failed the sample test doing it first time with no prep under exam conditions. Make of it what you will.

People are being sensible not taking chances, as the test is incredibly tough. And no, being bright is not enough. There is zero thinking time to answer questions. Unless you have seen a zillion similar questions before, you do not stand a chance.

Oh!! ZOMBIE thread!
I bet OP has chilled out since :)