11+ - please help us start preparing!

I agree how we got there doesn't matter. It isn't me who is slaying tutoring or criticising other parents choices.

Lose

Your "local academy" is a comprehensive. It is all ability. Or are you saying it doesn't lost the top 23% within its catchment?

Local academy - check
Grammar schools - check
Faith schools - check (atheist)
Independent schools - check (non-bursary qualifying)

Your "county grammar" obsession is irrelevant no matter how unimaginable for other people you think it is.

Do you think tutoring for months on end is a good idea or not?

I don't and didn't participate in it. You made different choices in, frankly, very similar circumstances.

Ultimately, we both got what we thought was best for our children and how we got there doesn't matter. (except in grammar counties obvs.)

You may well be "in catchment" for 4 grammars, whoop de do. It isn't the same as living in a county where there is a grammar system.

[head/desk]

You have access to true comprehensives. That is the massive difference, which allows anyone living there to be more laissez faire.

Oh and by the way we are in catchment for 4 grammar schools - but that isn't a grammar county so that's completely different.

"you are in a position to criticise other peoples parenting choices when you do not live in a grammar county"

I'll leave that to you then as living in a "GC" is clearly a special case.

The OP hasn't even said they do or don't, but don't let that stop you opining on matters.

MN164 you really are talking tosh.

National Curriculum teaching varies a lot in state schools.My dc hadn't been taught half what was in the exam or necessary speed techniques like long division etc .

I also take issue with your stance against tutoring and kids just sitting there never trying to better themselves.So studying and trying to achieve more is just verboten because it doesn't suit you or your dc. We don't all have to do the same.

Bond books
Manchester Grammar School past papers
Practise papers to time

Plus - outside interests. If you have interviews then they look for an inquisitive kid, with passion and non academic interests. Some say outright that they dont want tutored kids.

Doesn't your current school advise?

It was you who mentioned, on this thread, super selectives and comprehensives, if you read back.

Oh and FWIW I don't think my situation is special or unique. It's very very usual I am sure in grammar counties.

Not really interested in you, dear. Do you in fact live in a grammar county?

Thought not.

Not sure what else you think I know about you.

BTW - you seem to know a lot about my circumstances. How's that? I've not mentioned them at all on this thread. Perhaps you've been googling me?

Hmm .. "wholly unsuitable for DS on many levels" (your words) is a bit like "don't seem to be as attractive" (my words). Also, I'm not saying comps are bad, I'm saying that to many, where selective option are available, they "seem" less attractive. After all, the academy you mentioned does "seem as attractive" for your son - in your own words. Where's the beef?

My point was that your situation is not so unique or special. I would imagine that there are very few places where the local comps' catchments are untouched by some form of selective schools (faith schools, single sex schools, academies with selective policies, grammar schools, independent schools, etc). Actually, with no data to hand, I bet your situation is very not unique at all.

Long and short of it :I don't think you are in a position to criticise other peoples parenting choices when you do not live in a grammar county, and have no experience of the schooling options in one.

Your comments are invalid as you are not speaking from a position of knowledge or experience.

I also take issue with "don't seem to be attractive". Do you know anything about non selective schools in grammar counties? I suspect not.

I will also never know if we hadn't tutored and my child didn't pass if he had missed a massive one chance opportunity because of my actions.

Not worth the risk.

comps

Local comes don't exist in grammar areas. [sigh]

Your approach is just as many others do and your situation is very similar to many others too. Where there are selective schools the local comps don't seem to be as attractive. There is nothing special about that.

My lament is that this approach is considered "normal". It might be what every one does, but that's just a rush to the lowest common demoninator.

As you said, some kids have been tutored since year 4 and didn't get in. That is exactly my point. What a waste of time and money and stress.

Well done to your child for getting in. You will never know how little help they actually needed.

No unhealthy attitude here. Our situation, to be clear, as follows : ( will need to NC, again, after this! )

DS has been at top of class since Reception. We live in a grammar county. The options for secondary are as follows:

• local grammar - need to pass Kent test
• super selectives - need top score in Kent test/other test
• academy - (not comprehensive as top 25% ability band supposedly go to grammar ).
• church school - we are atheists and outside non faith catchment
• independent - min £20k per year. We can't pay this, and neither are we eligible for a bursary, DS was offered a sports scholarship but that's only 10%

We looked at the academy and the local grammar before the test. The academy is wholly unsuitable for DS on many levels, but I suspect our DD will go there as it ticks many boxes for her. We really liked the local grammar and thought it a good fit.

Nearly every single child in DSs class that took the Kent test had a tutor, many for the whole of Y5, and some also for the whole of Y4. The ones that had tutors in Y4 was to plug gaps, and most of these didn't pass the test. I can't stress enough it is the norm round here to have a tutor once a week for Y5.

It would have been difficult yes, if DS hadn't passed, as there is no school within catchment that would be suitable for him. Remember, we are in a grammar county and there are no comprehensives. Its very easy to say oooh don't pressurise the child, it's not a problem if they don't pass etc when you don't live in a grammar county. Or if you have a child that is borderline or working at average levels, and would be more suited to a non grammar education ( like my DD ). Or indeed if you can pay your way out. Or if you can move. etc etc.

So, we just wanted him to do his best. He's more than capable, but we didn't want to take any chances with such a one try setup.

In the event, he rose wonderfully to the challange, enjoyed the work and got into a SS, which I think will be perfect for him. We never visited it before he did the test as we didn't want to put pressure on him to get a top score. But if he had only had 10 sessions with a tutor I'm not sure he would have done so well, as he would be more panicked ( he's quite a stressy sort ) about what he was doing. On the day, he'd had lots and lots of practice so that it was all second nature and the stress was therefore minimised.

I think this explains why we did what we did. And again, I stress it is very much the norm round here. I think maybe you have a very different set up to us - comprehensives and super selectives? Which is a very, very different thing.

"he's in a state primary where there are 31 children in his class, a third of whom have serious behavioural issues." Ditto ... and?

Sorry, I know I'm being very harsh on this point, but there is a general and, in my opinion, unhealthy reliance on tutoring for long periods of time. I often feel like a lone voice against it. Our strategy was to have 3 or 4 schools which we liked with a wide range of academic ability. The national curriculum was all that was needed and that was covered at school. The only missing element was exam technique and some verbal reasoning. Ten hours was enough for that.

The key point being, we wanted our child, via the system, to settle to the academic level that suited them - not to push them above that level with a tutor.

Not getting into the super selective was not failure. When you talk of guarantees, you implicitly regard not getting in as a failure. That's unhealthy, in my opinion.

I think that's the key - do you really need the place? What are the alternatives like for your DS if he doesn't pass? Are you in a grammar county where there are no comprehensives, can you not afford to pay for independent schooling etc? Or is there a perfectly acceptable alternative, one that would suit your child?

I suppose we weren't prepared to take the chance, and neither was DS.

MN164 can you also guarantee Tiffin in 10 hours. Most applicants will have had much more than that. We know two very bright kids who did not do massive amounts of tutoring. They only just scraped in yet were soon performing at the top of the year group. If you really need that place it's a pretty risky strategy. It's not unusual for a child to be offered a place at a supposedly super - selective private school like SPA or Westminster yet not get Tiffin.

Tutoring wasn't a "waste of money and playtime" for us. DS happened to adore his tutor and really enjoyed the sessions. He got a lot out of them too - he's in a state primary where there are 31 children in his class, a third of whom have serious behavioural issues. The tutor could spend time going through any areas DS had a few more questions on than he might be able to get answered in class.

He has/had acres of playtime, loads of times for extra curricular sports etc.

Just because someone had a tutor for longer than your kid, doesn't mean they are tiger parents or "you want to go to the selective school more than they do". It really is very naive to assume everyone's situation is similar to your own, or wrong.

10 hours and that's for state primary. No need at all for a tutor if you're already at a prep - that why it's called prep.

Sure, you can tutor for 6 months, 1 year or more. Go for it. Poor kid. Waste of money and playtime. Maybe you want to go to that selective school more than they do?