Why would people be dishonest for 11+?

It’s kind of criminal that grammars are state funded.

On average, comprehensive schools receive more funding per student than grammar schools in the UK. Why don't give the students the freedom to select the school they want to attend? Parents of Grammar pay tax as well.

This is what drives me bananas about north London. The school tutoring and anxiety and the relentless competitive parenting. I hate it.

My children aren’t being tutored and won’t be. But we’re in the overwhelming minority in their friendship circles. My children are not going for the 11+ though, and you can’t get through the system (if you’re coming from a state school) without it.

I am against the system from a moral standpoint, so they definitely won’t be going to a grammar!! It’s kind of criminal that grammars are state funded. They’re absolutely NOT for anyone “bright enough”. They’re for the children of pushy competitive middle class parents who pay for extra tutoring. End of.

I also hate the shuffling and moving house for schools, too.

high performers in sports or other non-academic disciplines at borough, academy, national and even international level will require a lot of perseverance and practice. More might not mean better but without perspiration inspiration is nothing.

FOI show a huge gap between top and bottom tiers.

For the most competitive grammar in the country, the gap between the top and bottom admissions score won't be huge, except for those school have outside academic route priority policies (catchment / music sport aptitude etc).

Personally, I don't know anyone who pretended their child didn't work hard for their 11+, be it with parents and/or private tutors. However, hard work doesn't mean having to sacrifice extracurricular and other fun activities. My son certainly didn't and there will be many like him. He has just started Y7 at a London grammar and there are kids there who are high performers in sports or other non-academic disciplines. Talking borough, academy, national and even international level in some cases. That's just one proof that no, you don't have to be a slave to homework to make it into a superselective grammar.

Let's also bear in mind is that there is a wide range of scores among the children who get a place at a grammar. For my son's grammar (one of the most competitive in the country), anonymised score tables on FOI show a huge gap between top and bottom tiers. And the top scorers may not even be the ones who did the most hours. How effective can performance be when a child is tired or stressed? Also, various things I have heard lead me to believe that some 11+ tutors teach beyond the scope of the tests, making workload heavier than it needs to be. For example, my son once told me that, at school in Y5, there was a maths question he solved quickly in his head using good old KS2 knowledge while the classmate next to him took much longer using algebra. Another anecdote is where a parent said that their child's 11+ tutor for maths was absolutely fantastic and had them work at Y7 level by the beginning of Y5. Well, the tests in our area do not involve Y7 concepts: they're about depth and speed. Sadly, the child in question didn't even pass stage 1. I'm sure there are some great tutors out there but my point is that more is not always better.

Yes, it's intensive and also it requires a lot of resources, such as time, energy and education/intellectual ability on the parent's part, which are simply not available for a large number of families. So it's a long way from the original (never to be truly attained!) ideal of fairly selecting children by ability so as to give the disadvantaged as well as others a chance.

But it is also true that the prep that Pinkglobe describes (a year or so of learning the Y6 curriculum and exam technique, an hour or two a week) was enough for both my DC to get a grammar place and offers from independent schools.

I still think this is pretty intensive! 😁

I'm sure the lurking or considering 11+ parents will soon find out what is the actual effort required for their DCs, not relying on some outright successful story in MN.

What SamPoodle says is also what I’ve heard, about it becoming more competitive. But it is also true that the prep that Pinkglobe describes (a year or so of learning the Y6 curriculum and exam technique, an hour or two a week) was enough for both my DC to get a grammar place and offers from independent schools. It was fairly recent, between 2 and 5 years ago and in London (it’s often said it was easier in the past, and is easier outside London - I don’t have any way of knowing if this is right).

I know that there are some groups of parents in which it is normal to prioritise 11+ prep over everything else (sport, social life, downtime) for several years, and I would hate people to think that this was the only possible way to achieve success. Because that definitely wasn’t our experience, though it does seem to be the majority experience on this board.

I do think there is a tendency for those of us who opted out of the more intense type of prep to be accused of lying, as in the OP. I know I won’t convince them, but I would like those reading and lurking and considering the 11+ to know that it is possible for less intense approaches to prep to be successful.

Private tutoring is a huge, growing industry. I have noticed locally that it is becoming increasingly common to hire tutors for KS1 aged children, which would previously have been unheard of.

Grammar school admissions are a zero-sum game. Every place awarded to child A means a place that is not available for child B. People invest significantly in terms of both time and money and they aren't prepared to jeopardise those investments. They know that their child is up against children who have attended prep schools and studied VR and NVR as part of their daily curriculum since Year 4.

DD1 took her 11+ in the early 2010s and DD2 took hers last year. The difference in competition, tutoring, playing field etc has increased tenfold in that decade or so, let alone 2002 and 2023.

The 11+ has changed a lot since 2002 and has become a lot more competitive I have been told. Even from just a few years ago.

Because no-one wants to give the impression that they have hot-housed their child to get in and therefore taken a place from a child who might have been more suited to the school.

I have a number of colleagues who work in selective schools who know to expect a cohort of students every year who have been intensely prepared for the admissions test but need significant support once they arrive.

Yes, it's changed drastically since then. It's now the top percentage of children who have been to prep school to prepare for it or have had tutoring, with a rare few who have naturally or due to family background developed the skills without. So what would have been the top 25% of the general population back then is now a much, much smaller percentage of children in the general population.

When I was 10 (summer baby) my parents bought us the 11 plus practice books from WHSmith, this was 1968.
We weren’t actually tutored my parents just realised that understanding what form the test took was an advantage.
It worked, we all passed, however we we’re obviously intelligent enough to answer the questions correctly. I would imagine average dc will benefit the most. It used to be that the top 25% of the population were grammar school candidates. I was always at the very bottom of the 25% and wish I’d gone to secondary, I would have been at the top of the 75%.

@explainthistomeplease yes, i'm not far & some of the tutoring regimes are insane. From yr 4, 4 hours plus a week with homework on top. Very difficult to fit extracurriculars & play on top.

I worked in a school that had a stream akin to a grammar. The vast majority need tutoring as you are up against prep kids (who also often have tutoring) & there is stuff not on the syllabus.

There's also that section who are quite vocal about private schools, the Tories, capitalism etc but quiet re paying £££ for catchment for top states & tutoring for grammars.

We used to live in Tiffin Land, and it was crazy. Names of tutors withheld when asked, outright lying that children were being tutored when the child itself would say 'no sorry I can't come round to play, I've got 11+ tutoring' (and this was in Y4).

This was 20 or so years ago so I imagine it's worse now!

Lots of people don't want others to know they tried & failed.

I think the regimes are sometimes quite crazy & people are perhaps a bit embarrassed

Some will be telling the truth. I could not have afforded tutoring, I bought a book which my child did without tutoring from me, he had the answer sheet to check his own answers. Some children are just good at these type of questions, like some children are self taught readers, they just understand.

To a certain extent it is a private matter. My kids were at a very warm and fuzzy state primary where the class mums were very tight knit. Hoping to go selective felt like it was driving a wedge into the vibe that our kids were following the same path. Also I was playing down the eleven plus for my kids so they didn’t get their hopes up. So generally was not something that was discussed a lot.
plus once my dd let slip in an activity at school provided by an external provider that she had tutoring and he told her she must be stupid. It affected her for years after.

Because selection at 10 is an invidious, devisive process that brings out the worst in people.

I definitely didn't tutor my DC. I was a single parent on benefits when DS passed in 2002 and certainly couldn't have afforded it, or the books.

I'm married now and DD qualified in 2020 (a long time later), but still couldn't afford it. I bought a few books, but hadn't got the faintest clue how to do anything when she asked, she got stressed, I got stressed as I couldn't help, so she didn't do them.

The exam changed completely from DS to DD. DS was only verbal reasoning, Dad's was NVR, maths and comprehension.

I'm not lying and I've never been asked or told anyone IRL whether they were tutored or not.

Most of Dd's classmates who passed (and a lot that failed) were tutored and I guess they may have known, as she never went.

There is a huge disparity in house size and lifestyles between DD and her friends (same with DS), but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

It’s an awful devisive exam that feels like some kind of retro throwback, esp if you happen to live where I do - 11plus last taken in state setting 1973

Yes, it's highly unlikely a child at a state primary school will have covered most of the types of questions in 11+ tests.

The English comprehension and writing are far beyond year 6 level and although it's possible some children will have the extensive vocabulary required (if they read books aimed at higher ages widely and look up words, or if they have a highly literate family who use an unusually wide vocabulary talking to children), for the majority it would take a huge amount of extra learning.

My own dc is at "greater depths" in all subjects at primary school, but would have needed at least a year's tuition in English and extensive practice to pass the test. DC loves maths so might be ok in that without tuition, but would still need to be taught exam timing and skills and the extra 11+ topics that aren't taught at primary school.

We've done some non-verbal reasoning and DC loves it, finds it fun and easy, but of course needed me to teach and explain it before getting the hang of it.

There's also the exam technique. For example, as DC has been practising bits of verbal reasoning with me and can do ten minute tests and get 100%, we thought a school test would be ok. But dc can't finish the longer tests in time, despite the questions being the same type, style, etc..

We decided not to try for private schools because of the enormous amounts of work and pressure it would involve, and that's with a child who consistently achieves highly at a state primary.