The Politics of Grammar Schools

In my area, I think the tutoring is an absolute requirement for the grammar school. The local, selective independents are more forgiving. The grammar school test has to be cheap and also seen as "fair" by all; so objective. This leads to a multiple choice test with a lot of time pressure. The indies are also timed, but the pressure isn't so extreme. The indie tests involve actual writing compositions and tricky maths problems that are not multiple choice. Add to this face to face interviews.
I assume the grammar school would live to operate like this but doesn't have the resources to do it. Also, the politics of marking a bit of writing or making judgements based on interviews would be a nightmare.
I think findng diamonds in the rough and weeding out the over tutored is hard to do in a timed multiple choice exam.

I agree with Word,I think tutoring is hugely over inflated.

My dc did a few months before the exam of an hour a week during which they had to do Eng,maths,comp and VR ie 15 mins a week which is diddly squat.They were set homework which they needed the self discipline to complete. The work content was hard and I know several who struggled,did way more,who were at private schools and didn't get in.

I am a primary teacher but did the tutoring partly because me doing it wouldn't work,they weren't being pushed enough at school,I wanted them to develop self discipline and felt the curriculum covered would give them a good grounding wherever they went ie would have considered it for non 11+ purposes too and I liked the ethos and staff of the company.

We will never be afford private so made the best of what we've got.

I must add most of the materials are on the 11+ forum,many are free you could do it yourself.It's barely GCSE level so not hard.To the poster who mentioned essay practise there is a list of essay titles on the forum.You could easily get yourself a thesaurus,a timer and work your way through the list.

For example, ten girls in DDs year took the 11plud entrance for a selective day school.

All private school. All professional parents. I could have told which ones would make the cut and it was most to do with tutoring!

root I really don't think all that tutoring makes a difference.

I think parents who are doing it talk up its necessity to justify doing it. And also parents whose kids don't make the cut as it gives them something viable to be annoyed at.

I completely agree with you Rabbit. My DTDs are 8 and both learn an instrument, sing in a choir and attend a youth theatre group. I would rather pay for that than for computer games etc. However, many of the parents of kids I teach are not choosing piano lessons over holidays, it's more a case of there simply not being that £7 (what it costs in my school) per week.

I have managed to secure money from the school to pay for my GCSE Performing Arts class to all have a weekly instrumental lesson, which I'm thrilled about as I think the benefits of learning to play go so much further than just learning to play, IYSWIM.

Evil - you're probably right. Although where we are some music is subsidized, if you reakky can't pay. As a family we choose to priorities music and dance stuff above everything because that's what the kids want (so, no x boxes, no expensive holidays etc). But that's because the family has a musical background. When I was a kid everything was free (or I would never have learned). I wish that was the case today. Music education is so vital and yet so under resourced. :(

Root - I expect that kids where you are are brighter, to be honest, if the standard is so very high. I'm glad we live where we do!

Root - of the 4 kids from Dd2s school who passed 3 of them (including her) were working at L6 in maths in Y5. I understand this doesn't happen in every state primary but it certainly happens in some. A viable little group of high achieving kids in Dd1's year caused the school to take a look at how it was treating kids like her and the result has been a steady stream of 2-4 kids getting into the superselective every year since (in DD1's year she and a friend were the first two to get in for literally years).

Root - since you raised the subject - both my DDs were grade 5 in one instrument, grade 4 in two others and grade 2/3 in their 4th study when they did the 11+. DD2 also grade 4 in 3 different types of dance. One of the musical kids who passed with DD2 was grade 6(but only plays one instrument - very very well). I think, now, (I didn't really give it much thought at the time) that while the sheer amount of EC stuff they did/do precluded tutoring, it gave them benefits in other ways...DS only plays 2 instruments, and was grade 4 when he started secondary school in both, he didn't do the 11+ because he didn't want to and I didn't push it because, being dyslexic, I didn't think his English was up to snuff and I didn't think he'd be able to keep up because of this. So music doesn't always help - but I think if he had done the 11+ he wouldn't have gone to pieces during the test, for sure, since he is well used to that sort of pressure.

Rabbit - not necessarily a sign of pushy parents but certainly a sign of parents with enough money to be able to afford music tuition. Which is where we started with this... I teach in a small secondary school in a fairly deprived rural area and we only have a handful of pupils learning instruments - when they've started and have to stop, lack of ability to pay is the most commonly given reason.

Rabbit - would add, that at Grade 4 in two instruments, my ds is the highest achieving child in music in his state primary. He's come first in almost every piano competition he's entered and is considered quite talented. Didn't help him pass his 11+.

TheWord - do you really believe that doing regular essay practice and covering the level 6 maths curriculum (which most children don't generally cover in state schools until nearly the end of year 6) won't make any difference to a child sitting an 11+ test which consists of, umm, writing an essay and doing level 6 maths?

My son sat the 11+ having only two or three times written a discursive or descriptive essay under timed conditions. The children who had tutoring do this weekly, sitting with a teacher analysing a range of typical questions. The person who marks all his work at school isn't even a teacher - she's a TA. He never gets any detailed feedback on any of the work he does at school.

None of the children in DS's class who has got in has done so without at least a year of tutoring, regardless of parental input (and the parents are putting in an hour minimum a day).

"I simply do not recognise the picture you paint of what is necessary to pass the 11+."

Well, maybe kids round here are thicker then, but I don't think so. My nephew didn't get in - he's in the extension groups for maths and English and on target for all A*s in his GCSE's. My other nephew failed the 11+ but got in on the 13+ after two years at a private school plus tutoring.

Mind you that's not what we were doing, we were indulging our kids in what they live to do. But I do think, in retrospect, that it has had more positive impacts on them than just improving their music/dance/drama. Probably more expensive than tutoring too!!!

I'm actually sitting at an exam centre right now, waiting for DD2 to come out. It's quite noticeable how the other candidates milling round at the moment are all private school pupils. She's the only state one here right now.

Thinking back to the 11+ last year - of the 4 kids from Dd2's school who got in, 3 of them were grade 5 or higher on at least one instrument. Two of them played more than one instrument to a reasonable level for their age. And certainly the majority of the kids in DD2's class at the grammar learn at least one instrument. I don't know if this is a sign of typical pushy parents making their kids do music or of music education having benefits beyond proficiency in music...

rabbit - I agree that there are many ways to prep DC for admissions and entrance exams that don't involve endless drilling of past papers, VR, NVR etc.

Word - I know lots of people do tutor etc. But plenty don't and the constant harping on about if you don't do umpty thrumpty hours of extra Maths a week you don't stand a chance is just tiresome. It also serves to put ordinary people off trying.

Mind you I would completely accept an argument that by giving the DDs the opportunity to do so much music drama and dance we 'prepared' them in different ways. Exams? Done loads of those. Performance nerves? Nope, used to that, not a problem. Focus? Yep. Following instructions? Yep. That's not why we did it, but I'd be a fool not to acknowledge the positive benefits from all the stuff they do in that area.

Opal if the boy goes to " Stretford" Grammar it is one of the most socially inclusive grammar schools in the country !. The school has a FSM of 12% and according to the performance statistics 26% are still classified as disadvantaged. The school also has 40.6% pupils who speak English as a second language.

I'm sure some families extensively tutor for entrance exams but I'm not sure it actually helps that much.

Certainly kids get in who weren't heavily coached, and kids don't get in who weren't.

Root -both my DDs are at a superselective. DD2 who is in Y7 took the 11+ last year. She didn't have time for any touring or preparation such as you describe - she does music dance or drama every day after school and at weekends. The other 3 kids who passed the 11+ from her primary also didn't have the sort of tutoring you describe, either. Perhaps I'm a neglectful parent - but I don't think so. I simply do not recognise the picture you paint of what is necessary to pass the 11+.

Quite right rootsandbranch, I don't know this. I didn't meet his parents nor did I go to his home. From the staff that I spoke to that did know the backgrounds, I was told that most were chaotic (their words). The impression I got, when told about his achievement was that his was too. Obviously for child protection reasons and for general discretion these things are not discussed openly. Which is why it was such an achievement for him. He was obviously very proud. I don't know who did his paperwork or took him to and from the exams.

In terms of what is meant by 'neglectful' I don't think anyone here would use it to describe parents of bright children that don't make them do exam preparation. From my own experience even if you do get the papers and books you can't make your children do the damned things!! My own definition of neglectful parents is very different.

"I don't know much about his family background but most of the children at the school came from the poorer areas and none would be described as middle class."

You don't know this.

My dd spent most of last year in an EBD unit within her school. I'm a teacher and DH has a Phd. Many of the girls in this unit come from difficult backgrounds, but not all. There is nothing about dd's home life which is difficult - two loving, professional parents, lots of support, no specific learning difficulties.

Would add, that in most areas parents must make the choice for a child to sit the grammar school exams, do the admin involved in this and then get them there on the day. How does this work with a child from a chaotic and dysfunctional household? I'd suggest that any sort of selection procedure which requires parents to do research, fill in paperwork and to organise getting a child to the test venue is going to risk excluding children from the most chaotic and dysfunctional families.

Just realised my previous message did make it sound like the boy I was referring to went to the same school as my son. My son goes to our local grammar, the boy goes to HIS local grammar, not sure which!

Can I just add - a bright child who fails the 11+ doesn't necessarily have a 'neglectful parent'. My 11 year old ds has the highest reading age in his class, gets distinction in his piano exams, is brilliant at music theory and finds maths a doddle, but he failed his 11+ while the other 3 children on the maths top table passed. The difference between him and them is that they are made to sit down and do maths and literacy work every evening for at least an hour after school, have either three hours small group 11+ tuition every Saturday morning, or one to one 11+ tuition weekly, and have done for the last 18 months to two years. Ds comes home, does his music practice and relaxes. He does his homework at the weekend, which tends to take 45 minutes, and that's it. He had no tutoring for the 11+ other than attending a workshop which was focused on exam technique.

When a child is sitting for the super selectives - 'neglectful' means not making your child keep up with the sort of extra curricula maths and literacy practice and tutoring that other children (particularly those children in the local private schools) who are sitting the test do.

Sorry smokepole, Mehitabel asked for an example of a child from a disadvantaged background without parental support who got into a grammar school. The boy I cited is not from Altrincham but from the north of the borough, which is quite different. I did say that he would be the exception rather than the rule. It's not historic, he'll be in year 8 or 9 now. I don't know how well he's getting on but I very much hope he's getting any support he needs. He doesn't attend my son's school, I know of him through a different route.

Most high Schools there

Opalfire. Altrincham is pretty unusual in that most high schools are predominately Middle/Lower Middle class. Wellington for instance is vastly more middle class in demographic terms than DD2 or DS grammars in East Kent.