angered by tuition for grammar school 11+

Confidence and Grovemum make good points about the arms race. Probabaly it is the same children that would have got in anyway, but the stakes are raised so they all have to work harder to achive the same end result. The tutors have no magic tricks or inside knowledge, other than the sort of anecdotal stuff you can learn at the school agte anyway - indeed the most famous Tffin Tutors (the 'W's) publish their own VR test books, which are excellent, and all the stuff re different types to identify is available on the 11+ website forums foc. But parents pay money because they believe in the power of a mgic weapon ( a bit like the reason I buy nicely pakaged face cream to make me more beautiful than lidl's own brand - intellecutually I know it is rubbish, but just kinds want to believe paying moeny will make it work better...

"A more logical conclusion would be that the tests should be redesigned to be more cram-proof. As someone who writes similar tests for a living, that's a piece of piss to do. Many schools are now looking more in that direction, and varying the tests they provide."

Actually, don't Tiffin do that? I was under the impression that they keep the nature of their tests very close to their chest, and don't publish any kind of support or preparation material. Children can only be "prepared" in a very general sense, which they would be anyway through tutoring for schoolwork in general.

But you'd probably find that the privately educated/over coached performed worst.

All the thickest kids at my grammar, without exception, came from private schools. And had a miserable experience. They would have been much better off in a good comp.

Abolishing grammars won't solve the problem unfortunately. Whilst I agree they are unfair and would actually quite like to see the back of them, we wouldn't suddenly have a fairer system that addresses the social divide without them. Middle class children will be in the top sets and/or the better schools (the top comps are allegedly even more socially selective than grammars). The class divide starts way before 11: at 5 the poorest 20% children are a year behind the middle class ones and by 11 they don't stand a chance coaching or no coaching.

Eek, grammar, not grammaer!

You can tell I went to a comp!

If grammaer are going to offer a leg up to the less well off as they used to they need radical reform.

At the moment a lot of gramar school are just a free alternative to private schools for the middle classes.

seeker, you seem to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater - because some children who attend grammars are coached beyond their natural potential, all grammars should be abolished? That is a huge leap of logic.

A more logical conclusion would be that the tests should be redesigned to be more cram-proof. As someone who writes similar tests for a living, that's a piece of piss to do. Many schools are now looking more in that direction, and varying the tests they provide.

The fact is that - as you correctly state - grammars were set up to help the poor but bright - my family is full of people who fit into that description and to whom grammars made an enormous difference - there was just no alternative that would have given them (well, us - I'd put myself into this group) equivalent life chances.

If you get rid of grammars, you remove that chance for so many people.

The main problem with Tiffin having no catchment area and thus taking very few local DCs is that it takes funding away that should be used for local kids.

Consequently there is now a chronic shortage of secondary places in North Kingston.

@ Needmoresleep,

-----

"Confidence's post suggests a very different environment.

Schools like Tiffin do not take the top 25%. It is more likely the top 2% or less. There is no catchment so kids will come from as far away as Brighton.

-----

Yes, that was definitely part of my point. It needs to be remembered in any debate about selection that there is a huge difference between selection of the top 25% as in Kent, and selection of a very tiny minority as elsewhere. Here there still ARE plenty of kids who get into grammar with little or no coaching. A low-income single mother friend of our has sent all three of her daughters to the local grammar with none whatsoever, just by being totally supportive and behind their work at (state) primary school (and of course they must be reasonably bright to begin with). This is what I meant about how what people presume is about money, if often more about culture. This woman doesn't have a penny, but she is totally serious about bringing her kids up the same way we do ours.

----

"It is not correct to say that if a child does not pass the alternative will be fine. In inner London, some schools take a lot of children who come in with low levels of attainment, and struggle to provide a safe learning environment, especially for the more able. Even some parts of Kingston have poor schools, and unlike with the Grammars you are expected to stay in catchment."

----

Indeed. However, one has to wonder: If schools like Tiffin or Latymer are only taking the top 1-2% in their area, how much difference are they actually making anyway? If those kids were instead spread out among all the comprehensives instead, what difference would it make? Another half a dozen bright kids in each school, in some cases completely dominated by a non-academic culture anyway.

And furthermore, if there are so few kids (in total percentage terms) going to these superselective grammars, how much "injustice" is actually created by the tutoring culture anyway? Probably most of the kids would have got in anyway, but dint of natural ability plus general family upbringing and background. There might be a few that don't get it while a few that are less "innately able" do (if one could even measure such a thing in a way that discounts all factors of family upbringing). Of those that don't, many will end up in decent or excellent comps anyway and its debateable how much difference the non-existence of the grammar would make to these. I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I'm not convinced the injustice is as widespread in reality as people make out.

Isn't this largely about envy, because the system is delivering something fantastic to a small number of kids? I can see how this might seem unfair, but unless there are actual REASONS to believe that scrapping it would substantially benefit the others (and that the benefits would outweigh any disadvantages), then such a campaign just seems like sour grapes to me. I'd rather keep those parts of current provision that are working well and then work to improve those that aren't.

@ mattelie,

-----

"In any case, the answer to comprehensives being rubbish is to improve them, not to propagate a system which creams off the top whatever percentage, thus making it even harder for the upper schools who are denied access to the most academically able in grammar school areas."

-----

How does "creaming off" the brightest pupils make it harder for non-grammar schools? Surely it should make it easier, since those schools will then be teaching to a less varied intake and more able to pitch the level of lessons to more of the kids. One of the hardest things in any school is teaching to widely varying abilities.

If you mean it makes it harder for those schools to achieve the same results, then yes, of course it does. But only an idiot would expect a non-grammar school in a selective area to get similar results to a grammar school (which is not to say that there aren't plenty of idiots in government, imposing completely ridiculous and irrelevant targets on schools with no regard for such issues.)

But I can't help thinking that people somehow expect the most academically able children and their families to make schools good FOR all the others, and that their buggering off to be in their own schools is some kind of betrayal. I really don't see how that follows - especially when there are issues of behaviour, bullying and anti-excellence culture that work towards bringing such students down and preventing them getting the education they deserve.

If there are social and cultural factors that mean non-grammar students and their families are not making their schools work, then it's up to THEM to change those factors (with necessary assistance from the government - and they get just as much funding as grammar schools). I'm perfectly happy to pay the taxes that are necessary towards any programme for achieving that, but I don't see why my kids, who are perfectly capable of behaving, listening and working towards a good education, should have theirs ruined just so they can be around diluting the influence of those that aren't.

I loved the Day of the Zombies and Day of the Triffids descriptions for the Tiffin exam! I have a DD1 in Tiffin Girls in year 10 and DD2 failed to get in last year. DD1 was not tutored but did practice at home for 3 months and DD2 similar. I did offer DD2 the option of a tutor but she declined. It has now become an arms race. The vast majority of DD1's friends were tutored, she considers 1 or 2 girls in the class are not as clever as the others and probably over-tutored. DD2 is the brighter child - though she is dyslexic. I think the successful tutors only accept clever kids and coach them in the difficult vocabulary and techniques. I have heard that some have built up a test bank of GLA questions over the years and the kids are therefore likely to be familiar with some of the questions in the actual exam. In my opinion it is virtually impossible to get into Tiffin Girls without intensive tutoring. Yes this is unfair. I have heard there is a test produced by Durham University that it is not possible to tutor directly for - why don't the schools adopt that? Or change to a different one every couple of years? Actually I think the school quite likes tutored kids because they are their parents are likely to be highly motivated and hard working!

I think the Tiffin situation is extreme, and gets fuelled more and more each year by the increasing hysteria and herd mentality of parents. Even 13 years ago, at my ante-natal group, it was already a topic of conversation - for some reason parents assumed that wouls be the aspiration for their child before it as even born - doubt any of them had actaully visited the school at that point, or considered that that particular school might not necessarily be the best place in 11 years time for for that person gestating...

Confidence's post suggests a very different environment.

Schools like Tiffin do not take the top 25%. It is more likely the top 2% or less. There is no catchment so kids will come from as far away as Brighton.

It is not correct to say that if a child does not pass the alternative will be fine. In inner London, some schools take a lot of children who come in with low levels of attainment, and struggle to provide a safe learning environment, especially for the more able. Even some parts of Kingston have poor schools, and unlike with the Grammars you are expected to stay in catchment.

With a shortage of school places there are very few schools which will take out of catchment children, and then only if they are religious or very very academic.

The pressure on places is severe and hence the pressure on children. Living further away meant we were reasonably ambivalent about our son being offered a place. If we had lived in Kingston it would have mattered more and we would have felt obliged to ensure he was on a level playing field, which would have meant tutoring. I assume that is the position OP is in.

I think having to sit next to a pool of vomit would merit at least a couple of additional points. My son was just very grateful that he was not in a position where he had to pass. Independent school tests (13+ pre-test, or 11+ for our daughter) were relaxed in comparison. Pity about the fees.

Weren't the police called to Wallington Grammar a couple of years ago when it turned into a near riot? Tiffin was more like Day of the Zombies.

BTW they all do familiarisation tests

The official line is that it defeats the object of separating the wheat from the chaff if some are more coached than others.

There are 3,308,300 pupils in secondary education in UK and of these 158,120 attend grammar school.Not even 5%.
My point is (I think) that there are huge numbers of pupils for whom their nearest comprehensive is the only choice in real terms.

grimma, they're not allowed to because the official line is that tutoring does not make a difference. Everyone knows that it does, but if the LEAs start admitting as much openly, it will bring the system into disrepute.

Pretty disingenuous, when back in the 70s they knew they had to spend time familiarizing us with the tests.

In any case, the answer to comprehensives being rubbish is to improve them, not to propagate a system which creams off the top whatever percentage, thus making it even harder for the upper schools who are denied access to the most academically able in grammar school areas.

Our local school was in special measures 7 years ago but thanks to a brilliant HT is now over-subscribed, so it can be done.

I don't actually believe that the only state secondary school available to you is in special measures - you would have to be very unlucky - IIRC there were 50 secdondary schools in special measures last year - so you would be very unlucky indeed if all your local schools fell into this category.

My first ever message on Mumsnet! What about all those local authorities which do not have grammars? I could look up the figures but it would take too long. I'm sure we outnumber the ones who still have grammars. We are the ones who have REAL problems. Our own choice was between a comprehensive which is in special measures or pay to go private. That makes passing the 11+ look like a softer option!

Re the sage question does it ask meaning or definition? That's the kind of trick a tutor knows to tell a child to look out for.

VR is very easy to tutor for/prepare at home but not solely by reading lots (although it helps). Bilingual/multilingual children sometimes have an advantage although usually where they speak a Latin or Germanic language. The earlier you start preparing children for those tests the better by focusing on increasing vocabulary, talking about the meaning of words etc. Some parents are going to do that naturally, some will do it with a goal in mind, others have no idea and pay someone who does (a tutor) from an early age but for many it never crosses their mind until it comes to the exam when all that is compressed with exam technique. All those children have been prepared in some way, shape or form so I don't see how anyone can argue that VR is innate/there's no need to tutor because I'll bet the people saying that have been unconsciously preparing their children since birth.

Whether that's fair or not I couldn't say (although it would support the educated middle class parent theory) and wouldn't want to but if grammars exist they have to test somehow....

The anger - well, my anger anyway - is about a system that was specifically designed to help disadvantaged children being hijacked by the privileged. I think anyone who does not feel angry about this has either got a very skewed set of values, or has not thought about it very clearly.

2% free school meals in grammar schools - 13% in the total school population. Says it all really.

OAGN - not usre if you got an answer to the sage thing - thre meanings, - wise, a herb and a particlurly pukey shade of green you'd never want to wear - asked DS - he knew of them - he is 10, but he does read a lot. also know that sage is a 'false friend' in French, as I say to him sometimes, 'sois sage!' which does not mean be any of those three things!

grimma, they're not allowed to because the official line is that tutoring does not make a difference. Everyone knows thatit does, but if the LEAs start admitting as much openly, it will bring the system into disrepute.

QC I'm sorry but it is not just a matter of opinion. The vast majority of people involved in education accept that tutoring makes a difference, even to VR and NVR. In Bucks there is a study which confirms this, but it's not general knowledge for obvious reasons. As to whether it's necessary, well maybe not, but if 75% of your little darling's class are having tutoring, it's a brave (or poor, which I think is Seeker's point) parent who consciously takes the decision not to do it.