Why dont all kids do the 11+ like they apparently did 40/50 years ago?

Well no, it's against the clock. Tutoring means they can answer the questions quickly, they don't have to ponder over them. Most of the children will be capable. Practice increases speed. That's where tutoring comes in.

Why don’t all kids do the 11plus like they used to.? ( before the midish 70s )

Academically selective education is a horrible system!
It labels children from a young age and, quite rightly, a comprehensive non selective system doesn’t stigmatise kids for the best part of their lives.

That suggest more a problem with the actual exam and what it is comprised of rather than whether the children were tutored or not.

Then the exams for the grammar schools will be an 11+. However, the schools will only be in a couple of outer London boroughs, and run the exams themselves, so how would primary schools have the faintest idea which families were even interested especially if they are not in their own LA.

My daughter is late summer born and goes to a grammar school. There are some silly comments.

It's a competition. If a number of people start tutoring, the pass mark goes higher, so everyone else who wants their child to have a chance will also tutor. Whether it be with a paid tutor or by a well informed parent.

The Greenwich Judgement of 1990 also meant that schools could no longer prioritise children from their own LA. This meant that selective schools were open to children from adjoining non-selective areas. Win/win for both selective schools and selective areas. The selective schools get even better results and the LA is lauded as being high performing. This definitely affects areas like Trafford as per the OP. It doesn't really affect rural Lincolnshire in the same way as the majority of selective schools are not accessible from outside Lincolnshire.

Wrong. There are no grammar schools at all in Wales and Scotland. The only places in the UK that retained a full grammar school system are Northern Ireland, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. There are scattered grammar schools in other counties/boroughs but they are few and far between. I live in the SE and my nearest grammar would be a 4 hour round trip.

Not all of course but I think that truthfully many of the intensely tutored children, tutored incessantly for many years previously, would probably have not passed the 11 plus, if they had not been so intensely prepared. Compare this to the many children who pass the 11 plus, without any tuition, completely on their own merit. Surely if the child is capable enough they won’t need the tuition?

The grammars in West Kent are like that too. Think you need 99% for some of them. They really are not full of struggling children! For one thing they need to be a full year ahead on the maths curriculum.

Exactly my point, why bother if they are gifted anyway

To maximise their chance of getting a place if the percentage mark necessary was high. In a previous year it had been 95%.

I honestly think you don’t understand. You must be in an area with plenty of grammars. That’s not what it’s like here. There are 2 within 100 miles. Yes, DC could pass with zero tutoring BUT there are so few grammar schools nearby that passing is nowhere near enough. Children have had to achieve very high percentages to get into the school. Hence - for the eleventy millionth time - why parents pay for some tutoring.

Meh, people move house into catchment. People find religion. People pay. People get teaching jobs for fee remission or staff children priority. I know one vicar who actually took over a failing school and made it better in time for their DC to attend. Pretty extreme, but good outcome for them (and other DC of course - as long as they don't mind a lot of religion alongside the much improved GCSE results).

I really can't get exercised about 100 or so state grammar schools.

Better to ask: why do parents feel they have to do this? Why can't we rely on the local school being ok?!

Are you being purposely obtuse? We didn’t know the necessary percentage until afterwards. It could easily have been higher. I paid for tutoring to ensure DC performed at the top of their ability and got a mark at the top of their percentage range .

No, you can’t guarantee there are children there struggling 🙄 They are all very bright children and none of them are struggling. Where they might have struggled though is going to the local comp where bullying, aggression, truancy, disruption, etc etc is rife.

More than ‘not struggling’, they’re all happy and well-adjusted children at a school where the work is appropriately levelled at the academically able, and where children want to learn and behave well.

There really aren’t many. I taught in a super selective and the kids were very able, even in set 8.

So your DC didn’t need the tutoring to get in then 🤷‍♀️ Exactly my point, why bother if they are gifted anyway.

Plus, you can’t know that nobody in your child’s whole school is struggling with the work. I can guarantee that there will be kids who are….

Again, that’s simply not true. I suspect my DC might have got pretty much the same score (exceedingly bright, went to a Gifted residential, etc etc) but the tutoring shored that up and also provided the knowledge they needed to ensure they got the max score. My DC is one of the highest achievers in their school. Why do you keep saying that every child that has tutoring would have failed otherwise and is struggling?? It’s simply not true.

All the children who got into DC’s grammar are of high ability, whether they were tutored or not. Nobody - and I mean that absolutely literally - nobody is struggling with the work!

Tutoring won’t turn a less able child into a genius any more than having Torvill and Dean train me will mean I’ll win a gold medal at ice-skating! The tutoring is done by people who are familiar with the 11+ and can communicate tips to the children and go through questions. This helps ensure the child will perform at their best on the day. It can’t change a non-able child into a clever one.

Think of it like this, my DC had a possible range of marks they were able to achieve. Let’s say it was between 85% and 91%. The tutoring increased their chance of achieving within the top of their expected range. This was important because the percentage needed to gain entry was 89%. Yes, maybe DC would have achieved that on the day without tutoring, but I couldn’t risk it.

If our local grammar had been open, then DC might only have had to achieve 75% to get in and I wouldn’t have bothered with tutoring.

OK, well in the superselective grammar I taught in I think met ONE student like that in 5 years. They were all, uniformly, very able!

Agree with @Moglet4 in our area NVR questions were 8 in 3 mins! A child who isn't prepped for that speed and technique to answer questions would stand a chance against others that have prepped for months or years in advance.

The system sucks but it is what it is. I also agree it doesn't help there are so few grammar schools left, causing high number to apply from large distances. Bloody madness.

I think people understand why it happens, but it’s still the same outcome, the child that is tutored gets a ‘false’ score. So that child will be of lower ability than the kids who got that mark without extensive tutoring, and therefore will find it difficult to keep up. I don’t understand why a parent would want that for their child. My exSil did some pastoral work in our local grammar school, and a large amount of it was supporting these children.

Because passing no longer gets the child a place! And because we now have far fewer grammar schools.

Right - I never denied that. My post was an explanation because you seemed to think that people paid for tutoring so their children could pass. It’s not that at all!

And, as we’re talking about money and advantage, what about people who can afford houses in nice areas to go to better schools? The extra tens or even hundreds of thousand pounds they spend is vastly more than the small amount I spent on tutoring.

As I said, I did most of the practice with DC myself. DC is very bright. The tutoring simply prepped them for the exam, ensuring they didn’t drop a point and thus miss out. They also gave DC confidence and put them in the right headspace.

I don’t regret paying and I don’t regret doing the best for my child. I paid just over £100 a few years ago. Hardly throwing money at it. I’m on benefits now but if younger DC wanted to go to grammar school, I’d do the same again. The grammar school was by far the best fit for my child.

If no one tutored, you wouldn't need to tutor... but as people tutor other people have to tutor to keep up and its the poorest left behind

But how you completely ban tutoring?

Firstly, because the test is quite different from how it used to be (largely in terms of speed). Secondly, because some grammar schools have 3000 very capable applicants for 180 places.

@BreatheAndFocus explained clearly why the tutoring happens.

In north London there is no 11+ but there are grammar schools and you have to pay to sit an exam for each school.

Completely bonkers and unfair, parents have to be in the know. Primary schools should be automatically putting forward the brightest kids.

I must be old fashioned but I find all this tutoring odd - has the 11+ changed so much then?
I did the 11+ and was never tutored, I passed.
Both my children did the 11+ in their day (Lincolnshire) and also passed, it never occurred to me to tutor them and we couldn't have afforded to even it it had.
Why is this suddenly a thing?