Tutored to get into selective school

It is not just tutoring which gives children an advantage, it is also the education their parents can provide themselves.

I am fairly good at maths and could teach my child VR and NVR myself. So how can I tell someone without these skills that they should not be getting a tutor for their child.

If, having just started year 6, a child can do all of the year 6 work needed to pass the 11+ it is because someone has taught them.

tiggytape...things must have changed ...it was many years ago now, (won't say how many!) but I do remember being interviewed by head in a 1:1 for state grammar school after 11+. Also don't some faith schools interview? (At least I know of some parents that feel they have been interviewed when they visited).

But interviews are also limiting and can be coached for too (though I would hope the schools can see through that) ..and there will be some "gifted" children who don't interview well at all ...eg those with Aspergers...and others who have the gift of the gab because they do drama or public speaking with Lamda etc. so it seems like you need as much information in the round as you can get - head's report, interview and 11+ exams (which is what many of the selective Indy's rely on and take into account all range of things like drama, art, music sport etc.) ...issue is with superselective state grammars that have 2000 applying, that's not feasible...some heads may inflate their reports, interviewing so many would be vastly time consuming and then there will be appeal after appeal etc. So unfortunately it all comes down to a utilitarian 11+ test with a clear ranking of hard scores...but the more "untutorable for" they can make that test the better in my view.

Odd you do realise that not every SS is in Kent or Bucks? No head teacher report here. Just the 11+ ranking. And the 11+ is VR, English and maths.

Without tutoring Ds1 scored an average of 85% in his VR and NVR papers, 10 years ago that would have got him in the local ss grammar when tutoring wasnt as universal ( based on a friends's ds experience). Then parents realised their dcs who scored 75% could push this to 85% and above if they were tutored and get into the grammar. This meant the 85% non tutored children might not get into the grammar so their parents had them tutored as well pushing their scores up to 95%. This has happened gradually over the years and hence why not tutoring your non genius child for the most selective schools puts them at a distinct disadvantage and everyone in these types of school are tutored unless they really are genius level.

For the superselectives (do have experience), the entrance exams, which are often IQ based anyhow, are only a component of the entry process. The headmasters report (CAT test scores, Maths Challenge certificates etc) are very important. The interview can also filter ability.

Tutoring rarely swings it; unlike for the grammar selection that can be gamed to some extent.

They rarely seem to get it wrong. Very few do not flourish. Indeed those that enter at 11 and 13 and eventually 16 often outperform those have come up from the prep school.

Slickrick , you can enjoy learning AND prepare for tests, it is not mutually exclusive. I loved my subject at university but I had also to stady very hard for the tests.I think children should be tought how to apply themselves, even if they don't enjoy a particular subject.

I dont believe in tutoring to pass a test BUT I do believe in teaching my children to love learning.
People that tutor are teaching their children that they only put effort in for tests IMO this is wrong.

Linsey - I think the point Farewell is making is that grammars were set up to promote social mobility for the "bright working classes", not to provide a free education for those that can afford prep school fees and the cost of tutoring. Kind of looks unfair when you read it like that....Not judging, just clarifying....! And I'm not criticising you and your fellow prep school parents - it's the system which seems to have gone wrong in that the playing field is not even.

My DS was tutored for the 11+ and wouldn't have got to grammar school without it. He's now predicted A*s at A'level. As were many of his friends.
I never understand why people presume that children who are tutored will end up at the bottom of their class once they get into grammar school. It just doesn't follow.
Even if children don't actually physically go to a tutor, many of them are tutored by their parents at home- same thing if you ask me.

"I believe most kids of average intelligence can be tutored to pass 11+"

A lot depends on the type of test, and the selectivity of the grammar. The local grammar schools in East Kent have a very different intake (and different results) from the West Kent super selectives.

Bowlersarm, what I also like about our grammar is the fact that there are no sets, all kids have access to the same standard of teaching, so the late bloomers still got a chance to get good GCSE results.

This is my point Farewell, tutoring CAN make a difference. I believe most kids of average intelligence can be tutored to pass 11+, and grammar schools are not some magical places, you don't have to be a genius to study there.

I have a number of friends who tutored their children both for grammar schools and the top private schools in the area, and on their evidence it seems that once a school has accepted you, tutored or not, they look after you once you are in and ensure you get the right amount of help in house to keep up.

I know of no one that has been asked to leave for academic reasons even though they had originally struggled to get into their chosen school.

So you sent him to a prep school and had him tutored?
And 90% of these prep school kids pass. Are they intrinsically brighter than kids at state schools? Or are the reaping the benefits of smaller classes and lots of prepping for the 11+.
Ah the grammar system, such a great leg-up for the bright working classes...

By the way the only people that worry about tutored kids at grammar schools are parents of kids that did not get into those schools. Every single child that I know had been tutored, doing just fine and their parents are not worried.

Absolutely not. He used to struggle with maths, was in the bottom of the middle set. Tutoring and his prep school had helped him so much, maths is his favourite subject now, his maths teacher at grammar school is very impressed. By the way his prep school was non-selective, yet over 90% of his classmates had passed the grammar school exams.

DS was tutored for 2 years. I always thought it'll be a miracle if he'll pass 11+. He scored almost full score in his exam with 10-15 min to spare in each section. He asked to go to the toilet during the exam and said it was so easy, he found it boring. He also had a CAT test in his grammar school and scored a very high score. He is not struggling at all, qquite the opposite.

Minymonty - not true. In our neck of the woods we have a non-selective private prep that is the same as a normal primary except that for year 5 they do pretty much nothing but prepare for the test (then in yr 6 they catch up with the bits of the curriculum they dropped - science etc). They consistently get 93-97% of children through.

Unless you believe that only high IQ people can afford the fees and that there is a 100% correlation between parent IQ and child IQ (against which I exhibit 'Mark Thatcher') then tutoring will pull a child through regardless of IQ.

I think that as far as tutoring in senior school itself goes, this is far more common than it used to be, but not necessarily universal. For those pupils who are on track to come out with a string of A/A* results, then I have seen parents supplement the weakest subject with tutoring, in order not to end up with a single B.

Whether or not this is reasonable, it is a very different case from the child who has to be tutored in every subject just to keep up with a selective standard.

Tiffin is an interesting example as their entrance exam is purely VR/NVR, which is very unusual these days, especially in London. The tutoring bubble for Tiffin is an odd one, as the effort that goes into the tutoring doesn't have an impact on general schoolwork. Other grammars in either Barnet or Sutton say have maths and English as the core tests. Whilst these can still be tutored for, usually the result means that the child's general numeracy and literacy improves, whether the child is successful or not. Tiffin does tend to attract the more compliant child who will do Kumon/VR papers etc for hours. Provided they stay compliant, then they get the GCSE and A level results too.

I hate to break this bubble but there IS a huge IQ gap in Britain. There is also a HUGE and HORRIBLE reality with selective schools.

The kids that get in ARE brighter. The Tutored kids make it if they were going to make it anyway but otherwise - they DON'T.

Tutoring makes ZERO difference so don't waste your money on it.
The kids you are up against are so good that they DON'T NEED TUTORING. The kids you are up against are nerds and geeks and serious faced ten year olds who have been reading "The New Scientist" for fun.

If little Jill or Johnny is obviously part of this brigade they will sail through but if they're not you seriously DON'T want them to go to a selective school where they will spend seven years in the bottom stream of the bottom class of the the bottom arse end and leave feeling destroyed.

School without fun is the subject of just too many bad books and Radio 4 dramas.