DS failed 11+ very upset, angry and sad

@BeJollyNewt - what are you talking about? Just take your DCs to the library from a very early age on a Saturday, model reading books and be strict on screen time. My kids all read loads from age 3/4 and we didn’t have to do much 11 plus work. Familiarisation at the end of Year 5 over the summer and a couple of mock tests was enough for us. In fact, I believe that if we had stressed them out and done too much school work early they would have never read as much as they did.

Home tutoring makes children read regularly and widely. Not all parents can tutor DC to read widely. So DC who don't get tutored to read are still bright and charming, they might need extra tutoring for exam

both work full time parents are all not rich,and rich doesn't need grammars.

Eh? You know it's the same teachers in each? Grammar schools don't somehow whip up better teachers - they come from exactly the same pool of candidates.

Meh. My DD's comprehensive offers all of the above as well as valid BTEC options, which you won't find at a grammar. I was curious so looked up the curriculum/extra curriculars on offer at the super-selective grammar I attended (in another part of the country), which i have seen pop up in this forum a few times. Its offering is worse, and in fact its progress score is worse too! So no, grammar school does not guarantee added value.
Besides, why should only the top 5% be allowed the option of various enrichment opportunities outside the core national curriculum? 🤨

No they're not. You sound incredibly ignorant. The state schools near me are great. I have family in the NW and they attend good state schools too.

so your son is performing well at school and predicted greater depth.

how competitive is the exam he sat? 3000 kids for a 100 places type of place? If yes your son is not a failure because those types of schools are insanely competitive and you’re competing against kids who have been tutored from birth.

the wordy English questions causes many kids problems, it’s come up many times before.

focus on the new options for you. What are the secondary choices now? Don’t make an issue out of the 11+ because it’s not an issue.

and I agree with the others - the tutor wasn’t honest with you because they wanted ££

@BeJollyNewt - if rich parents both work full time and the state provides a good free education for their DC and the next generation of workers, then the state ends up with more money anyway via taxation. It is about efficiency. The constant trying to bring people down does not work.

Rich parents can bring in those values to their dc anyway right? why do they need GS? only to get it managed by state?

Bluntly Korean Japanese and Mandarin only really benefits Tamil, Chinese and Japanese students (that’s why it’s offered). Nobody else is going to come even close to as fluent in these subjects as they might in a European / Indian language. It’s such a marketing gimmick.

Some grammar schools really do add value, in terms of things like offering 5 languages including Japanese and Mandarin, offering Further Maths GCSE to loads of kids, having a cohort of tons of kids doing music GCSEs and getting a 9 etc etc. The list goes on and on for bright children.

So the schools with the best results are the ones that select the brightest children. Ground breaking news.

In what sense was I using a sample of one?

I was comparing the statistics compiled in respect of an entire cohort of pupils across two schools (actually more than two because I looked at other schools as well) and comparing outcomes at 16+ as well as the schools' respective value added scores. So n = about 2000. I don't think it's me that needs remedial education, thanks.

I agree outcomes are generally better because of the selective nature at grammars (although not in the case of the two schools I compared) but that was my entire point: that grammar schools in themselves do not add value.

terrible facilities and mediocre teaching

You will find that in a lot of grammar schools too..

Your supporting information misses the point. Sure, any school with selective entrance exam will have overall better results, but that doesn’t mean particular students in regular schools with similar prior abilities can't do just as well, if not better. Grammar schools like to brag about their scores, but they’re just cherry-picking from the start, by picking the parents and family who invested most in exams.

Most state schools are falling apart, with terrible facilities and mediocre teaching. Grammar schools, although imperfect, provide a glimmer of something better for aspirational parents. So IMO, grammars should be cherished.

Similarly, all my DCs got into super selective grammars, and like yourself I self taught, so I know they can be taught to improve marks considerably through consistent tutoring.

We can find supporting information for both our points of view.

https://britannia-study.co.uk/boarding-schools/state-schools-league-table/

To be fair the type of kids who get top 11+ scores have developed real understanding / academic skills far earlier. The 11+ test practice is just that, practice.

Rote drilling to hit 100% within tight timeframes stifles real understanding and academic development. It turns learning into a test-passing exercise, not benefiting the child's overall personal development.

It’s not just 100%. You need to get that score in a specific timeframe.

I tutored DSD myself through 11+ from state (she’s finishing uni now), I know how difficult it is. It would have been far, far easier and better for her mh to do it from a feeder private school. I would have paid for it even but her mum (who’s also my friend so I argued the point) opposed on ideological grounds - something she was only able to do because it was me who was tutoring her. The poor girl was so stressed and we only had room for other activities because at one point I decided she needed to stop doing the homework set at school. I decided this from Year 3 as that was when everyone told me to start prep from - but I wish I began in Year 1 and told her school to fuck off. I’d already taught her her timestables to 12 by then and they were just wasting time.

In the end she did get into a superselective with a top 1% score.

I just think if you have the money to pay tutoring for a superselective and extracurriculars then it’s not a huge stretch to pay a few grand more for private school fees if it makes your child happier.

Most parents of superselective grammars are rich anyway - rather than invest in properties in expensive state primary catchments they should really be investing in education.

"We know kids who got 100 per cent top scores with just Atom."

So now someone is suddenly acknowledging that the advantage brought by tutoring is significantly more than just a few points.

Technology and AI open up so many possibilities for fairer, more dynamic education catering for individual needs. The 11+ feels like a relic from the past, barely keeping up with today's educational landscape and the skills kids actually need. One should be looking forward, not relying on outdated methods and school system that just perpetuate inequality and create social divisions.

sounds hideous. I pity the poor children being drawn into the ‘you need to get 100%’ scores. No wonder there is a mental health crisis in young people and children. And the parents who go down this route are fuelling it, just so that they can brag that their kid is the smartest kid in their street.

Many children are not stressed, but just take it in their stride. If they are overly stressed, agree not right for them. Also, agree that grammar schools are an imperfect solution to increasing social mobility, but they do have that affect for not an insignificant amount of families. Do you have a solution for that?