If you heavily tutored for 11+ but didn't get into a super selective...

@SamPoodle123 agreed 100%.
We are a product of our environment, and more so for the kids in today's distracted environment.
Everyone should read Atomic Habits

jamesclear.com/power-of-environment

Children are often influenced by their peers. If they are in a grammar school surrounded by other academic children, it will continue to motivate them. But some dc if they are surrounded by kids who are not interested in school, they might follow suit.

Or some dc need to be stretched more, which might not always happen. Eg my dd was in a primary and it was not so challenging so she was able to just coast along with no effort and doing well. Her peers were nice, but not very interested in academics. We decided to try for some more academic schools for secondary. Now she is at a more academic school and more motivated. She is being stretched and challenged instead of just coasting along bored. Her last two years of primary, she got so bored she started going to the bathroom to make bubbles! We were notified this by the teachers and they basically said they will allow it. She was GDS in everything, so they probably understood she was just bored. Anyway, she is now in a more academic school and is very happy....no more going to the bathroom to make bubbles :)

I couldn’t agree with this more about the London grammars. Those children are always going to get great exam results no matter where they go - the school can’t be adding much if any value. I’ve heard there can be up to 3000 applicants and places for only 200 children. If you’re the top 200, you don’t need that school to get you your A*, you’re getting it anyway.

I wonder if parents do it all so that their children can have a peer group of equally bright and pushed kids.

In my old area, these super selective grammars were an obsession.

Perhaps a status symbol?

As others are saying if your child needs lots of intervention then maybe it isn’t meant to be?

Very few dc in London will get in without some form of tutoring because the competition is so fierce. I mean people do hours of work a week.

This was years ago as I’m in my thirties now but I did an 11+ for a selective and got in with no extra tutoring. As others are saying if your child needs lots of intervention then maybe it isn’t meant to be?

Grammars near us (not London) are selective but the expensive non-selective private schools beat them with the results every year. Funny how the kids who are mocked for not passing 11+ somehow do better than the kids who should be high achievers. Grammar schools don't always have the best teachers IME and they certainly don't have as many SEN pupils as the privates.

@sweetmelody best of luck with it all for you and your family. London is odd in that there are so few grammars they become 'super selective' really by default which means they can cherry pick the absolute brightest (/most parent-invested) kids so then their results look amazing and so lots of parents feel almost obliged to try for it. I wonder how much value they really add, and whether the results they get aren't largely inevitable given they gift themselves the top child in each primary school. I found it useful to try to look away from the grammar info and look closely at the comps available to us. There's nationally reported info but school websites often provide extra / more detailed info on their own webpages which can be very useful. For us, I could see a GCSE pass rate on the national site, but the school's site broke that down to show me the pass rates for different subjects, highlighting that for some subjects the pass rate was particularly high, and also giving the Grade-7+ pass rate for different subjects. Looking at that detailed info is another one of the reasons we felt confident to make the choice.

I totally empathize with the feeling that sometimes in London (particularly if your child is at a primary full of invested parents) it can feel a bit arms race-y. I also did think, wow if these guys are this invested in the kids' education - and yes most of the kids won't be going to the grammars - then we definitely will be fine in our comp high school, because all of these same parents will be there!

I think a lot of parents don't understand this, no.

I've had several real life conversations with people who are insistent that their selective school is better than the local comp, purely on the basis of getting better results.

And there are many posts on MN from people who assume that a school getting 90% of Grades 4+ at GCSE is intrinsically better than one getting 60%, is better than one getting 40%.

An interesting sub point to this is where parents pay for tutors so their child can keep up with (or better, exceed) the "expected level" at the school.

Life is a bitch and the sooner your child learns the lesson the better.
Working hard does not guarantee reaching a given goal.
However, it is by learning to pick ourselves up after being defeated that we become harder and better equipped for the next challenge.

I would be wary of seeing 11+ prep as a (plan B) way of 'securing a top set spot' in a comp (as some posters imply). My DC were initially placed, correctly, in mid-sets for Maths and English but over time moved up (or up, down and up again in one case). The driving force behind their success was developing the motivation to work, becoming more self-organised and exercising personal agency (eg personally finding a topic difficult, recognising and addressing that on their own).

You are right that it requires a child to be self motivated to stay in top set but given children model the behaviour of the other around them then why wouldn't you do your best to get them into top set in the first place? Then if they don't keep up with the work and drop down you can at least say you and them tried their best.

It's so sad that the grammars have enabled this situation in the state sector. Kids feeling they've failed and wasting whole summers just to avoid a terrible school (which shouldn't exist somewhere as wealthy as London frankly).

Talk to a therapist. Be honest and get to the bottom of what it is that is driving you to have invested so heavily in the idea of getting your daughter to a super-selective. Discuss the possible impact of failure on your daughter's psyche. Once you have really explored and owned what this is about for you, and got an independent perspective on the possible costs as well as benefits for your daughter, you'll be better placed to make a decision?

I am located in completely comp area (ie no grammars near or far) so cannot comment on the 11+ prep aspect or indeed tutoring generally. Setting is typically only done in Maths and English (and sometimes Science) and, certainly for my DCs' school, was based on school testing (ie not SATS) and setting was very dynamic thereafter.

I say all the above because, I would be wary of seeing 11+ prep as a (plan B) way of 'securing a top set spot' in a comp (as some posters imply). My DC were initially placed, correctly, in mid-sets for Maths and English but over time moved up (or up, down and up again in one case). The driving force behind their success was developing the motivation to work, becoming more self-organised and exercising personal agency (eg personally finding a topic difficult, recognising and addressing that on their own).

So, OP, my advice is that if your DC is keen to take the 11+, then make sure the approach to tutoring helps builds the skills I have outlined rather than focusing on a test, and specific tutoring for it, as a means of jumping onto some kind of gilded conveyor belt that pre-ordains success (whether grammar or comp top sets) because I can see the latter breeds very unhealthy attitudes whereas the former builds skills that carry through to A levels and beyond.

Thank you for sharing your experience. You could have been describing my own with my daughter, currently in the trenches preparing for the Sept 25 entrance exam for a N London school. I really needed to read this as I’m finding it all so overwhelming. She has her difficult days but, on the whole she is working so hard and is so motivated, despite being at a school that does not prioritise home learning. However, deep down I know that her chances of getting a place are slim - it’s just so uber competitive. But I also believe that a motivated child will do ‘well’ anywhere. But ‘well’ is such a subjective term. I look at the GCSE stats and I also see the huge difference between those achieved by the super selectives and the best comps. I’ve always thought it meant that even the top set kids won’t fare as well at the comp than if they’d attended the grammar. But I’m hearing increasingly that they do as well and often better….

Would still love to ‘prove’ it to myself, but grateful for your post reminding me of this. Can’t believe you turned down a hard-fought grammar school place though. I salute you!

@Chocicechocicechocice - I’m curious now which school you’re turning down (and which you’re taking)!

We’ve just been through the (gruelling!) process. Dd was eager for most of it, (which helped a lot!) understood what was at stake and relished the challenge of being busy and working with a really clever and lovely bunch of kids. Until the summer hols (when they mostly stopped anyway) we kept up with all the usual play dates and extra curricular clubs and activities, so she took several exams - that wouldn’t help her pass the 11+, but doing activities that she enjoyed and kept her healthy and active. It meant there were weekends when we left home at 8.30, she did 2 different sports classes and a private practice, hopped in the car at 11.45 with a packed lunch and I’d drive her to do 4 hours with the tutor and then she’d fall asleep on the way home, then wake up to do the tutor’s homework… but (I felt) better that than some of her friends who dropped all their clubs and activities to just spend the whole weekend ‘doing 11+’ with no let up or respite…. Some of them haven’t passed any exams (so far - hopefully they’ll have lots of success in the future) and I think it must be an extra kick in the teeth to have nothing ‘else’ to show for that period.

I also really encouraged dd to find and celebrate success along the way - doing better at the tests, getting praise from the tutor, learning new skills etc. As those things are worthy of mention in their own right.

There are long months where you won’t know if all the work has paid off (we have to wait til March to find out for sure)… and I wanted both myself and my dd to be able to not regret the time given up if she doesn’t get a place. It also means if she didn’t succeed I could say ‘ah maybe in hindsight we shouldn’t have taken the extra classes needed for the exam’ etc.

@Ubertomusic you're probably right! A lot of my child's friends were doing it and so they wanted to do it too. They have that kind of personality where they quite enjoyed (most of...) the prep. I thought if they got it they might want to go, but turns out they literally just wanted to do the test. Perhaps novelty value of a new process? We are outside catchment for our preferred (non-grammar) school but the school gives out some places to non-catchment children on the basis of a test - because we had to pass a test to get the place at that school we were always going to be doing some test prep anyway.

@Chocicechocicechocice Why spending all that time, money and effort on prep, even stepping it up - and then not going?.. Wouldn't that be easier just not tutoring if you're happy with the local comp and don't see much difference with grammar? 🤔

We got into the N London super-selective we applied for (with tutoring), but we are going for a nearer outstanding comp instead. My view is that a child who can do the work needed to get into / close to one of these schools will do well in any good school that puts the children into sets. Looking at GCSE grades overall the difference looks vast, but very often the top crew at a good comp will do as well as the kids at the super selective - that's your comparison set.

Also, my child had a tutor through Y5, but we stepped it up a lot from May. From that, I learnt what they're good/not so good at (which I didn't really know before!). They really enjoyed the prep in their preferred subjects. I'm convinced I've already improved their GCSE outcome in their less preferred subjects! As long as there wasn't too much work, and they feel okay about not going to the super-selective, I really think the work is mostly not wasted - mine has developed an ability to study, put in some hours, commit to getting right through a workbook etc. Basically, in May I was already thinking that - if you compare top comp kids w the grammars, the difference in results is minimal. But it was seeing their ability to work and learn over the Summer which made me confident that my child will do well anywhere, and we could ditch the super-selective we'd gone for.

Not applicable to all super-selectives perhaps, but for some, I really think that they're not as good as a more local school for social development. Too many of them are still fairly traditional grammars, how much do you need to approach your curriculum afresh when 3000 parents will put their kids in for your school every year? And having their friends over such a big area just makes all the social stuff (which is important too!) harder - more difficult for the kids to exercise their own agency in arranging socials etc. More dependent on lifts from parents like primary kids.

If you have a child who was willing to be tutored, who put in hours, progressed as she worked - she has all the skills to excel wherever she goes.

I suppose I don't regret it as I would have wondered! But I do feel the time was wasted -- all that time on subjects like verbal reasoning and non-verbal reasoning that I don't see translating into actual school work. (Maybe I'm wrong!) Neither I nor DC is not bothered about not getting (YAY!) but I AM annoyed that we wasted a lovely summer and so many evenings (with lots of grumbling) because of it.

Going to superselective private makes only sense if you are wealthy and can easly afford it.

Superselective grammar schools have exactly the same curiculum as top sets in good comprehensive schools. Where I live parents of very capable kids have not even been considering sending kids for the exams at the local superselective one gender grammars. Simply, the state schools are in the top 100 best state schools in Uk. From the whole school there maybe were 6 candidates to two grammars. Two Indian kids got in. The same with superselective private. 2 kids who applied got in , one went to less selective.

We only have superselectives around here and DD didn't get in. However the 11+ practice did help with Y6 (as she was already familiar with most of the maths, so her lessons were extra consolidation and more of a confidence boost that she could do it) and she is now in top sets in Y7 in the local comp. We did the tutoring ourselves but it was worth it for the extra maths consolidation before secondary.

DC went to a school that prepped heavily for 11+ and other entry tests but we decided it wasn't the right route for her. She sat a "fair banding" test based on the NVR type of 11+ questions and quire enjoyed the experience. So I don't think it was a waste. It gave her a lot of practice in doing timed tests, anyway.

It depends on your child. My DD1 practiced daily with old papers from mid year 5 but had plenty of time off. We didn't pressure her, she passed.

My DS practiced occasionally, he was 9 marks away from passing, if I had pressed him harder, he probably would have passed. I am glad he didn't as he is flying high at the comp and I am not sure that he has as much dedication to school work as DD1.

DD2 practiced once and passed. I don't think she should go to grammar school as she will struggle with amount of work and homework that's expected but it has been her choice.

DD3 will take the test next year, she will practice but will not be tutored as have none of my children.

Super selective schools can be great, it suits my DD really well but the work load is heavy and she really has had to give up a lot to do well. She has to leave at 7, as the school is a bus journey away and gets home at 5. Evening homework is at least 2 hours.

I think one tutor or ten tutor or no tutor, end of the day kids only have certain capacity to absorb knowledge or information. And even if we have whole world sorrounding and teaching them, it won’t be of any use. So see what fits best for your kid and go with it. There is no harm in any strategy. You can have multiple tutors or no tutors as long as kid responds to it.

We didn't get in. DC is smart but not hugely motivated academically. We tutored but not extensively and probably didn't do enough over the summer.

However my DC isn't too disappointed as we didn't centre his whole self belief around it (which I'm pleased about.) We mostly talked about getting extra exam practice (which was a real plus imo) and the tutoring can only be a good thing.

It's helps that I wasn't 100% sure if the selective school would have been the best fit for him anyway given he's only motivated by subjects he's interested in.