angered by tuition for grammar school 11+

I was not expecting them to struggle. More that you might have a group whose "education" to date had been based around VR and non-VR and who were behind on things they had not spent time doing, such as play, sport, essay writing etc.

There will be some very very bright kids, and I have heard that especially towards the top of the school and in the top sets, it is a great place to be. Indeed for a bright girl perhaps easier than an indie where levels of affluence and sophistication can be overwhelming. However part of the cohort will presumably be children who are there because they are well prepared, and will be taught accordingly. However perhaps a duller cohort that kids who have had more time to do other things and who have not spent two or three years focussing on an entry exam.

(Dare I add that we have come across one or two rather arrogant Tiffin boys, who genuinely seem to believe that passing the test at 11 means they are cleverer, and perhaps better, than their peers!)

(I might also add that it would be great not to pay those fees, so allow a level of sour grapes!)

I don't doubt that Seeker, and you've produced research to demonstrate that your experience is widespread.

But your solution is to abolish the grammar schools, no?

And how would that actually improve social mobility and access to tertiary education? Because you're just closing another door, aren't you? Why not simply ensure that the exams only test ability and ensure that children/parents have equal access.

I repeat. In my dd's very socially diverse primary school - in the catchment of an area of significant social deprivation, ONLY middle class children of graduates passed the 11÷. And they were by no means the brightest 12 in the year.

I honestly believe that this tutoring for years for VR and NVR papers is an urban myth.

Would any parent who has shelled out for this step forward on this thread?

Just because I cannot believe anyone has done this.

If you sit through the practice papers, which I did with DD, they are not difficult. DD is only averagely bright. i distinctly recall that the first time of doing the tests she scored around 60%. By the end of the 4 practice papers she was scoring 93% plus. What on earth form of good would tuturing do for VR and NVR papers?

I am convinced it is an urban myth. If it is not an urban myth then both parents and children are being robbed blind. Parents of their money and children of their time and energy, which would as others have said, be much better spent learning an instrument or playing.

If you are Christian you can take the Church School route....

(Our local comps are also those closest to Downing Street. Apart from Jack Straw whose son went to Pimlico, I do not see politicians of either party doing anything other than what local people want to do, which is to find alternatives.)

If all the kids are tutored why would they then 'struggle' when they get to GS? Makes no sense - the teachers do not teach to a aribrary level regardless of the abilities of the pupils they are teaching - they will teach the children they get. Tutoring is not a foolproof, magic bullet you can buy to enable dim children to pass an exam. This idea of 'struggling' is just congitive dissonnance on the part of peopel who want to kid themselves their child is a genius who just 'was robbed'.

Having educated middle-class parents is usually a huge determinant in educational achievement. Education is valued, children are read to and encouraged yadda yadda yadda

Grammar schools used to be the way of levelling out those sorts of inequalities, because everyone was prepared for the 11+. Social mobility has massively decreased as a direct result of abolishing them. It's richly ironic that the socialists who abolished grammar schools have decreased social mobility.

I see the report that there are fewer socially disadvantaged children at grammar schools than there are at comprehensive schools. But it seems to me that those socially disadvantaged children at grammar must be more likely to achieve a degree of social mobility than they would be if they went to comprehensive schools.

So I think the answer is to have more, not fewer grammar schools; for the 11+ to test ability rather than knowledge; for the exam to become more widespread and for preparation for the 11+ to be undertaken at state primary schools.

I agree with OP.

Lots of the usual cliches are coming out about pushy middle class parents etc, but it is not that simple.

We live in an area where state education choices are grim. This means that many people, rich and poor, scrabble around trying to find somewhere where their children can be educated and feel safe. Being middle class does help. It means you have the resources to move house, to rent a flat somewhere else, perhaps have children "live" with grandparents somewhere more leafy. It also means you are more likely to be Christian and to take the State School route or to pay. Or you can tutor your kids to the nines.

Tough if you are a newly arrived asylum seeker or migrant who is already worried about raising teenagers on an inner city estate and does not know enough about the system to play it, yet desperate to use education as a route to a better future for your children.

Though mine tried for a couple of selective schools (including Tiffin) we did so without tutoring and, honestly, they got nowhere. They did get into good selective London day schools where they are thriving. I know one child who got in, via the wait list, without tutoring though with lots of home practice, and she is not only towards the top of the year group, but is also the only one of her friends who was not tutored. Some exceptionally bright children (major scholarships to top schools) do not get Tiffin.

Though fees are a real struggle, the combination of a long daily commute to a grammar and the two or three years of daily VR and non VR practice did not appeal. Education should be education, not exam-technique, childhood should be childhood, and out of school activities should be more than test papers.

Ironically if my children stay where they are within their year groups they can be predicted to do better than many at Tiffin. Some of this may be down to smaller classes, or more resources. However it suggests that if Tiffin is really selecting without bias and taking the brightest, they are not doing very much with them once they get in. (There are about 600 girls out there who did better than my daughter in the test and also did not get a place!) Or that places go to the most prepared not the brightest.

As well as possible language and class bias there may also be a cultural bias. The system may favour large extended families with the experience and ability to support preparation, above say the child of a single mum who is already working two jobs to keep heads above water.

I don't know if the solution is not to get rid of grammars, as they represent an opportunity to some who would not otherwise have it - and clearly people are desperate for that opportunity. The mad tutoring phenomenum is more a symptom of concerns about the alternatives.

The system is now so deranged that it almost represents child abuse. The OP is right to be angry. Children are spending two, three, or four years practising VR and non VR when they could be reading books, playing, taking part in sport, learning an instrument or a language. What happens when they get in? Or if they dont?

depressing report from Sutton Trust

From memory, 2% of children at grammar schools are on free school meals, against 13ish% of the school population.

Having just been through the horrible process I just wish we'd moved to a different area.

Bucks CC admits that external coaching for a period of over 9 months makes a substantive difference to a child's 11+ performance.

There are some state schools round here which get excellent 11+ results - talking to a parent with a child in Yr2 who has already enrolled her for preparation classes starting in Yr4, this is completely the norm at that one particular school.

And while yes, it would be marvellous if every parent were able to access the resources around, their own educational level does also have a huge bearing. One child I know who entered (and failed by a long way) was the first in her family to ever do it. Her parents do not have a particularly high level of literacy, the odds were stacked against the child from the start.

I don't know if Bucks has a figure on how many children eligible for free school meals get through. I'd be very interested to see it.

The council's argument is that the appeals system is there to redress any inequalities. Well that assumes that children have sat it in the first place and have parents clued up enough or motivated to go through with what's a very intimidating process.

Ok, alpinePony - I give up. You're right.

"The rich man in his castle, The poor man at the gate". People are only poor because they want to be - if they wanted to read books they could always get a lift to the library.

All's well in this the best of all possible worlds.

Yes very DM

Also, I wan't "making excuses" for my children. My children have a lot of books and we would be considered middle class.

God sorry. That read a bit DM.

I'm so sick of reading that middle class children only get anywhere due to their pushy parents. I genuinely do not understand why children from poorer families underachieve compared to their peers because I can only imagine it is down to parental influence unless we are saying poorer children aren't as bright . Libraries are free, Sure Start exists etc. At some point, people have to accept that parents have a job to do, and maybe we should encourage parents to spend time chatting/ reading/ playing with their kids. After all, middle class families are constantly berated for basically trying to do their best for their kids, as if they are somehow stepping on other children in the process.
FWIW I am totally opposed to grammar schools, and am against tutoring which massively works against any family that cannot afford it.

"It is also a mistake to think that dcs at prep school get prepared for the 11+. The preps in our area don't do any practice for 11+ or tutoring. Those that go up to 13 do CE prep but the ones that go up to 11 do nothing."

Most of them do though, common entrance exams contain a verbal reasoning paper (usually) so they have to.

Agree that older children may seek out books, go to library on their own but not primary school age unless the parents support them and take them. Our local gs is in a very deprived town, not many midfle class residents. Exam has a pass mark and then places are given on distance. So the kids living in town have an advantage over the mc kids in the villages. We're ten miles away and its hit and miss every year whether kids from this village get ä place. We won't tutor dd, just get some practice papers.

I have a 6 yr old who will most likely do the 11+. I'm surprised at the suggestion on this thread of getting practice books from 7. If a child needs so much tutoring to pass the exam what happens once they are at the school? Unless the tutoring continues they will be lurking down the bottom of the class. I can't see that being a recipe for happiness.

When i did it we took three practice papers in class and then did the exam. No tutoring at all.

It is also a mistake to think that dcs at prep school get prepared for the 11+. The preps in our area don't do any practice for 11+ or tutoring. Those that go up to 13 do CE prep but the ones that go up to 11 do nothing.

I have internet access but the kids on the estate mostly don't and they don't know me well so asking me for a lift (i don't drive anyway) would just be odd

Maybe they could ask you for a lift? Or maybe they could read stuff online - I'm guessing you've got internet access.

Of course if you're looking for excuses you'll find them.

"I don't think books are found only in homes. I'm guessing they have access to libraries. Curious children by their very nature will seek out the library and other ways to gain knowledge. I don't believe it's about the middle classes, but I do believe there's a lot of bitterness about the issue." For a child under ten to get to the library from our village they would have to take two buses. That library will be closed shortly. How the hell are they supposed to seek the library out ?

With respect - as people alwsays say when they are going to say something a bit rude - I'm not sure that someone who does not live in a grammar school area even in a country which has grammar schools!) can make informed statements about the 11+!

If the test is not skewed in favour of the middle classes - either because the test itself is badly formulated or because those children who have access to additional coaching before - then why do a disproportionate number of middle class children pass it?

Or are you saying that middle class children are brighter than working class ones?

Probably because they live in a Labour voting area and successive Labour adminstrations have put pay to Grammar schools! As you were!

It does not favour the middle classes - that's like saying driving tests are skewed towards the middle classes as a child with more money is more likely to be able to afford a car!

"Are you saying the results should be fiddled so that someone who doesn't perform as well be allowed through?'

where did I say that? I am saying that any test which is skewed in favour of the middle classes is inherently a bad test and should not be used to determine the future of 10 year old children.

The test starts off unfair, and the unfairness is then compounded because parents with the knowledge/interest/money can significantly increase their children's chance pf passing,

Middle class children are not cleverer than working class children. Why then do very few of the latter go to grammar schools?

Are you saying the results should be fiddled so that someone who doesn't perform as well be allowed through?

At my primary - from the 45 or so of us, 8 passed. Being from "Bexley" I suppose we were all "middle-class" - so why didn't the other 37 pass?

If the child cannot pass the test it can't pass. No point getting upset about it for the next x years.

I find myself in an interesting position now as a mother. I'm living in The Netherlands, here the children will be streamed and the "less academically able" will do plumbing/electrician/builders/hairdressing courses from age 14 rather than be forced through GCSEs/A-levels which they have no hope in passing. I love this idea - because if my son has no interest in academia this is wonderful - but I have a British friend who is so against this idea she's sending her daughter to an independent school to sit exams regardless of talent.

Not every child is a genius.