angered by tuition for grammar school 11+

Similarly state primaries cannot tutor either.

Why on earth not? They used to. Back in my day, AFAIK no-one tutored their kids for the 11+ because the school did it, and we all had a shot at the exam.

If grammar schools are part of the state system then state primaries ought to prepare children for the 11+.

I don't really get what all the anger is about, TBH. Some parents are wealthier than others, and some parents care more about their kids' education than others. Those that have both the means and the will will ALWAYS put resources in that those who lack either or both won't.

Even in a purely comprehensive system, as exists in some counties, there is segregation by postcode as parents who can move into wealthier areas to get their kids into "good" schools. The question is not whether the grammar school system is fair, it's whether it's more or less fair (and more or less effective) than the alternatives.

We're in East Kent, where fortunately 25% of kids still go to grammar, so that rather reduces the tutoring culture. It seems that the places where it is worst are where you have one or two super-selective grammars catering to a whole county. Which is a good argument for either scrapping grammars altogether, or having more of them.

We had a tutor for our son for the 11+, once a week for two terms, but she wasn't very good and to be honest I did most of the work preparing him myself. He walked it and probably would have passed without a tutor.

I'm not sure about the whole three times a week from year 3 thing. My son got a bit overloaded by it all just from what we were doing and it started to become counterproductive. I'm skeptical of the degree to which a kid who really isn't up to it can be made up to it by sheer force of work.

There's a whole cultural issue at play though which is more diffuse, but no less powerful. We have brought up our kids since they were born to be excited about learning, to value knowledge, to experience reading and music and arts, to converse intelligently and to be comfortable with silence. We have no TV, and they have limited access to computer games, DVDs etc.

We read to them every night, and then they read alone in their beds. No media in their bedrooms. When they're interested in something, we talk to them about it, and spend time doing it with them. Preparing for the 11+ was largely just an extension of this culture which has always been a natural part of our family life anyway.

Am I "middle class"? Probably, whatever that means. Do I accept the implication that I am somehow responsible for compromising the prospects of other children by giving my own an "unfair advantage"? No, not at all. What I accept, reluctantly, is that I happen to live in a society where many peoples' idea of parenting consists of sticking their kids in front of some kind of media from dawn till dusk to keep them out of the way, while shovelling garbage into their mouths every few hours.

Very few of the things we do to actually RAISE our children cost much money. Most of them just cost time, effort, sensitivity and will. Yes, it's true that there are many families who probably couldn't afford the weekly tutoring fee that we paid, but I think that's being made into a bigger part of the issue than it really is. The truth is that we live in a very diverse society full of not just disparate wealth but disparate ATTITUDES to education and lifestyle. Of course these disparities of attitude will affect the children brought up within them. How could they not?

But it's bizarre how people so often react to this by blaming the people who are doing it right, and presuming that all the people who aren't are helpless victims.

I also reject the idea that all kids who don't get into grammar school are being told they're "failures" and "written off". There are plenty of good non-grammar schools in grammar areas, and particularly of course where there are only a few grammars taking the top 1 or 2%. If schools are not good, the answer is to make them better - and that depends on whatever children are there and their parents, not on the people who aren't there.

There are also plenty of children who go to secondary moderns who go on to have highly successful careers in all sorts of fields. My in-laws' family includes one who is a headmistress and one who is a billionaire international business tycoon. Many kids around here go to secondary moderns, DO thrive academically and then transfer to the grammar school sixth forms.

I don't think any education system is perfect but the grammar system is probably no more imperfect than most. Inequality is a social and economic issue, much more than an educational one.

BTW, there were no fainting or vomiting or crying children (or parents) when DD did the 11+.

I live in an 11+ area my 2 eldest were not tutored in VR and nonVR they didn't need to be, they understood what to do as I think most kids would.I got practice 11+ papers and I think they had a go at 2 or 3 of them to build up their speed.
But I have relatives nearby who don't even bother to get their kids practice papers or leave it way too late.

SEEKER-So what is the third meaning of 'sage'- I only know 'herb' and 'wise'?

But quattrocento, what you were doing was tutoring. 10 hours of past papers, exam technique, timing and question recognition. That's what people go to tutors for!

And that is what is not available to bright children from disadvantaged homes whose parents don't have the knowledge, confidence or interest to provide it for them.

Needmoresleep your description is very interesting and similar to our own experience. My daughter saw one child vomit in the exam room and another faint. No extra time was given to the children as a result of this distraction. My daughter had to do the exam next to a pile of sick. Parents were hysterical outside the school some loudly sobbing. It was a dreadful experience even though we had down played the whole thing. My daughter is very calm and level headed child but by the time she got home she was in pieces. Unfortunately, she had to go through the whole experience several more times. There was not a single exam that children were not removed from because they were crying or could't cope. It is a terrible thing to do to ten year old children.

Yanbu, op, the whole system is hopelessly skewed, almost corrupt.

My dd is super-bright and in Year 5 and if we lived in a grammar area then I would be going through all the torment about tutoring or not. I am completely against it in principle.

As it is, I am hugely releived that I do not even have the choice .

The system needs a major overhaul.

Aye, I don't dispute that Seeker

I'm sorry to have irritated you with my insistence that tutoring isn't necessary. We just all speak from our own personal experience - and mine was that it wasn't, whilst you, I think feel that it was.

We spent no more than 10 hours in total doing those Bond papers, five Saturday mornings in two one-hour slots. The GS in question is categorised as a superselective (although not Tiffin). And DD really truly isn't a brainbox. I did take jolly good care to ensure that she had enough exam technique - IME most exams are about that, even at university - and we practised timing and question recognition. That's all we did.

Of course the Schools say tutoring is not necessary. They would be opening themselves up for appeal if they suggested a child's chances were improved by being tutored. Similarly state primaries cannot tutor either. However they must be used to kids being withdrawn from class in Yr 5 and 6 for extra tuition. Good results enhances their local reputation, so they wont object.

Actually I don't think children are at an advantage going to an independent Prep. Not in London. The prep's job is to prepare for Common Entrance. Most parents are not paying for their child to be taught how at the top of their abilities in VR and non-VR, but learn some French and history. Some private schools will be better at 11+ than others, depending on their normal destination schools, but few are going to bias teaching to the extent that Tiffin requires, and the homework load and longer school day will make tutoring harder.

I am irritated Quattrocento's insistence that a couple of Bond papers will do, and her refusal to confirm whether she lives in the South East. There is a real problem. My view is that one reason is patches of really poor State provision. There is no moral high-ground in that where I live anyone with any knowledge and ambition has played the system to some extent, whether it is paying, going to Church, renting a flat, or tutoring.

If you dont acknowledge there is a problem you cant do much about it.

The Tiffin exam was very strange.

We go on the busy commuter train, having bought an A-Z which covered Kingston in case we could not find the school. We need not have bothered. When we came to change trains there were several mums with 10yo boys sitting on the platform. At each stop more got on until the carriage was full. When we got to Kingston it was like a version of The Day of the Triffids, with 1,100 mums with boys walking slowly and nervously towards the school. Some mothers literally sat outside the school wailing and crying with anxiety for the whole three hours. Boys broke down in the exam room.

My son had only done a couple of Bond papers. On the way home we other mothers were quizzing their sons on whether they had remembered bits of exam technique. (If you run out of time you tick Box a on the rest, and you should pick up at least one point in five - that sort of thing.) My son looked pale as he had not known to do this.

He failed the exam by a very small number of mark. I know someone with a similar lack of preparation whose son failed by just one mark. I have no doubt that both boys would have got in had they been a bit more prepared and would have thrived.

It did not matter for my son in that he has gone to a very good Indie close to our home. He is a boy who likes education and is really happy. The problem is paying for it, which is a struggle. It was much tougher for the other boy who became lost in a large comprehensive.

Perhaps the emphasis should not be on allowing bring disadvantaged kids access to Indie schools or to Oxbridge, but actually looking at how they can best access selective secondary provision. Even the train to Kingston, Wallington or Sutton costs money that poorer families dont have. Denying that there is a barrier in terms of tutoring does not help.

Ok. Nobody should tutor. The advice is not to tutor, State Primary schools are not actually allowed to tutor. And if nobody did, then NVR would possibly be an almost level playing field. VR would still favour children from families which have books and read, and maths would favour children who go to schools where the topics tested are covered. But NVR might be fair.

But because some people do tutor, and tutoring makes a difference, at least, to speed and accuracy the test becomes automatically unfair - favouring children who come from families with the inclination, knowledge, money and confidence to prepare them for the test.

Privilege follows privilege.

I've acknowledged several times now that certain grammar schools test knowledge, which is not taught in state schools. Which is utterly unfair and in those circumstances tutoring must be necessary.

My beef is against tutors for VR and NVR. It is entirely unnecessary PROVIDING you do the practice papers. Which incidentally is what the OP's hoped for grammar school told her as well. To whit

"i emailed the grammar school just out of interest and they said in response that the entrance exam was based on 'natural ability' and that one should not be tutored"

So I think parents are doing tutoring as a substitute for doing practice papers with their children. Which is outsourcing - just as I have chosen to outsource my cleaning and my gardening. But having a cleaner/gardener is in no way necessary - just a luxury so that I can have some time.

And of course if parents are not doing practice papers with their children, putting them up against children who have at least done some practice will mean that the results of tutored children will be better than those of untutored children. Doesn't make tutoring necessary.

Or even desirable. By outsourcing my cleaning, I get to come home to a nice clean house. No-one is miserable in this scenario. By outsourcing tutoring (or practising) you get to be miserable, you get to make other parents miserable and anxious and lord knows what impact it has on children who are having flashcards brandished at them at the age of 10.

QC, where we live I would estimate that between 75% and 90% of children receive some sort of tutoring, although in some instances this might take the form of doing practice papers with parents, not sure whether you would count that.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 11+ tests cover areas that are not covered by the NC - or at least not until later in Y6, after the 11+ has taken place. You would have virtually no chance of passing the exam where we live if you went into it having only done a handful of practice papers as there would be too many question types with which you would be unfamiliar.

If you think that tutoring makes no difference, you are in a minority of approximately 1, since every parent, school and even the LEA admits that it does. There's a quantative issue, to be sure, but nobody seriously doubts that it has some effect.

Incidentally, book reading alone is no substitute either. DD had a reading age of 4 years ahead of her actual age and can frequently be found lying on her bed reading, anything and everything, but she didn't pass her 11+.

Q, that's my point. Your daughter has not passed the test to this superselective grammar school so you're in no position to decide whether intensive tutoring is necessary or not. And I think you're doing that typical Mumsnet thing of saying that your very bright child is very average.

Of course children can just read books! But reading books is a haphazard method of vocabulary acquisition, whereas learning wordlists is not. Think of it a bit like those champion Scrabble players. They could just read books, but they learn dictionaries, because that means they know all the obscure words with 'q' in them that will get them extra points.

For many people, getting their child into Tiffin is a life's work. Think of Tiger Woods' dad and the endless golf practice from 3. Think of the prodigious musicians whose parents encourage hours of playing from practically infancy. It's about passing a very specific type of test and I'm sure the 10,000 hour rule applies here as much as in other fields. My child might be naturally very bright, but they might not be as fast as a child who's been practising for speed for several months.

I've never done flashcards with my kids either. And they didn't do the grammar school test. But there are loads of people who are doing it.

*The

Could be, but many are the same, or so I hear. We have friends in various grammar areas all over the country. We all have children taking the exam this year. We all have much the same experience. They system has got silly IMO

Notevenamouse, you may be talking about the same grammar that we have applied to. AFAIK, more than 120 children could well reach the 98% pass mark. But they simply don't have enough places to offer them to all the children that get a high enough grade. So the pass mark then goes up.

singersgirl I think you are right. Our local grammar schools have a pass mark of around 98% They have 120 places. More than a thousand children enter the tests. For this reason the 121st child on the list will have scored 97% and failed to get into the school. The schools have no catchment area so children come here from london just to enter these tests. Their families then buy a second home in the locality if they pass.

I personally grew up in an area of comprehensive education only. The LEA is in the top 10 in the country. Lots of my fellow pupils went to university and at least one or two a year went to Oxbridge. Many chose not to bother as like me the courses at other universities suited me better. The education I received was brilliant and has helped me cope very well in the work environment and at university. Nobody bothered applying to neighbouring LEA grammer schools in those days. We were set for every subject which enabled some to take their exams early and the top set for English was different from the top set in Maths which gave people the chance to shine in different subjects. There was an emphasis on core academic subjects and help was offered for those kids at sixth form college who choose to go to Oxbridge including an optional latin O'Level. I see no issues with abolishing grammer schools if all comprehensives are streamed for different subjects. It is far better than creaming off those whose parents can be bothered at 11 and brings the power back to the child to decide whether they work or not which will give them a much better way of coping in the workplace. My Dcs will go to the same comp and I am happy with this LEA and their choices made. As long as grammar schools continue, inequality will continue.

Flashcards for 10YOs. Whatever next! Why not just let them read books? If a child is well-read they pick up loads of vocabulary naturally and might just be enjoying themselves in the process.

My mind is literally boggling at the thought of having some overpaid tutor hellbent on exploiting parental paranoia flashing flash cards at 10YOs.

You think it's necessary. I think it's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Shall we agree to disagree?

I agree with Seeker's contention that the education system is something we should all feel invested in. Although in the interests of complete openness I should probably explain that DD does not attend said grammar school.

''ok, so people like seeker justify their choice to allow their child to be 'creamed off' by saying they have to because otherwise their own child would be in a sink school, which would be unacceptable. By that logic, presume they also defends people who choose to send their children to fee paying schools for the same reason?''

My attitude seems to make me a bit like seeker. So, yes. If the system available is not what you want, then you make do. If we had a comprehensive school, the dcs would go there. We don't. So one is at grammar and the others will be sent where is most appropriate (out of a second best system).

I still take issue with Quattrocento's point about tutoring and, indeed, about the three meanings of the word 'sage'. Actually, though many 12 year olds might know them, my own (at highly selective independent school, though admittedly not the child with the widest vocabulary in the world) couldn't think of 3; bearing in mind that many children are only just 10 when they take their 11+ exams, I think it's pretty hard.

I would be marginally more interested in Q's point of view had her daughter passed the entrance exam to, say, Tiffin, after the 4 practice tests. If you ever visit the terrifying 11+ exams website you'll see that very focused parents on there teach their children vocabulary words daily in and out of context (suggestions are made for lists, flashcards and games); they practice question types intensively until the child is superfast with them.

Remember, in a situation where the majority of children are tutored, while the truly exceptional child might get in without any tutoring at all (and I include in this intensive parental tutoring), one or two marks makes the difference between success or failure in the exam, so some parents are prepared to do all they can to give their child the chance of getting that extra mark.

Nope. I justify send my child to a grammar school (with some difficulty - it was a very hard decision for us, and I have more than once said on here that I am still very uncomfortable with it) by pointing out that there is no comprehensive school in our area. If there was, that is where she would be going.

"Sink school" is a ridiculous, emotive term. The high school where many of dd's friends go is an excellent school. The only think it lacks is the "top" 23% of its possible intake.

ok, so people like seeker justify their choice to allow their child to be 'creamed off' by saying they have to because otherwise their own child would be in a sink school, which would be unacceptable. By that logic, presume they also defends people who choose to send their children to fee paying schools for the same reason?

Fair enough seeker

There is so much difference between areas, not just good schools v bad schools, but in the whole system that underpins them, it's so wrong. If we moved 20 miles away we would have a choice of 3 or 4 grammars, and some very good comps, but where we are there's one of each and that's it. Even then I consider myself lucky because the local school is good and one that parents have moved to get into. It's a truly ridiculous system.