Are kids really trained from preschool to pass exams at 11+ and ebteabce

[Purpledragonz]

Just that really
A friend told me that
They said it might sound OTT but data shows it give kids a massive advantage in the future

I'm not familiar with the British educational system (went to French schools), but how accurate is that? Or is it nomsense?

I guess some people have this approach/ mindset, but most don’t? Certainly not in the sense of tutoring or exam prep from 5yo. Unless she is making a broader statement about the importance of good early education and linking it to later outcomes?

I think it depends what she means by 11+. Private prep schools definitely train students from the first entry point to pass their own exams - eg DS’ school taught them to read and write in preschool so Reception could focus on comprehension. But for state grammars you usually can’t buy tutition until at least 7 or 8.

No. It's nonsense. Your friend is a loony.

I say this as a teacher of 30 years experience in many different British schools. It's not normal.

For super selective grammars, my experience is that the tuition starts at around the middle of y4 (aged around 9) with the actual test being taken at the start of y6. This seems to be the norm nowadays - from what I understand there are very few children passing with a high enough mark for a place without that tuition.

It's very normal in many private schools, yes.
Not literally in pre-school, but the pre-requisites to start once in school.

Friends sent theirs to a private grammar crammer . Full time.
Then paid for weekend lessons from age 4.
In the last few years before the 11plus they then did after school and holiday revision as well.

They were excessive but not prepared for the alternatives.

4 sons
2 got into Uni
The other two flunked out on GCSEs.

Most people in our area pay for at least a couple of years of private tuition

Ours ( at private) weren’t taught for the 11plus, why would they as they’d loose students. Or in fact any other entrance exams but ours were all 4 - 18 schools.

They went to two different private schools and did need to do a test for entry to a different senior, but we did that at home in a couple of days. Just recap stuff

No idea as it's not something I'd ever consider. Couldn't think of anything worse than putting that kind of pressure on kids that age.

It depends where you live! It happens here a lot (London). Not something I’d do, but it’s very common here. Prep for the 4+, 7+ and 11+ start from the beginning. But the 11+ tests kids here take aren’t for grammar, but the selective privates.

My child is at a grammar. He had no tutoring for the 11+. His (state) primary wasn't a typical feeder for the grammars so they didn't cover it in school and we couldn't afford for out of school tutoring. We bought a couple of revision books for him to get used to the questions over the summer holiday before he sat the exam in the September.

In the sense that a good pre-school will do early phonics, yes.

You can't really do exam prep in any meaningful sense with pre-school kids. They just won't tolerate it.

I think middle class parents will try to get their kid reading before primary school. And will intervene with tutoring if they look like they're falling behind at any point after that.
Formal tutoring is common for SATS and 11 plus. But I guess, in a sense, the groundwork is set early.

I didn't do any of that. And, of my two, only one could have tolerated it.

Regardless of what you read on mumsnet most of the UK don't have Grammar school and haven't since the 1970,s so obviously not.

I don't know anyone who started tutoring that early. I think the earliest was year 2. A few more in year 3 & 4. Then more again in year 5.

Depends on area.

In my part of London where there are top private schools (think St Pauls, Westminster etc) I’d say it would be effectively impossible to pass 11+ without masses of prep.

In the UK kids start comprehensive school at 4, most private schools go from 3. In the private schools, classes are smaller and they operate at a much faster pace. They (or the ones I know including those my kids attended) aim to get the kids to 2 academic years ahead of the kids in comprehensive by the time they are 8. So by the time they are sitting 11+ they are operating at the standard of a 13/14 year old. If the child is in a comprehensive, unless they have masses of tutoring or are a genius, it would be impossible to keep up with this.

You’re not asking if this is moral or not so I guess not the place to say. Many get left behind. I withdrew my own kids as they were stressed keeping up.

The London privates are probably quite different. I grew up in Birmingham which has excellent grammars and many bright kids can pass the 11+ without lots of tutoring, though would need to have prepped to at least understand the exam format as many of the non verbal reasoning type questions will be in a format they won’t be familiar with from mainstream school.

But the question is are they ‘trained’. And I think the answer to that is in private schools, they are. At 3 they start a full reception curriculum so by the time they’re in regular reception they’re onto year 1 stuff and it just snowballs so they’re always ahead.

in theory! In practice of course some kids aren’t developmentally ready

Mine is a working class child from a lone parent family. He went to three different state primaries, worked through a test practise book on his own (refused parental involvement), and got into a no-catchment, ranked scores, state grammar easily. Just bright.

I live in a county where there are no grammar schools. As a result our comprehensive schools have bright pupils as well as not so bright pupils.

DD went to state primary and state comprehensive, achived mostly A and A* at GCSE, As at A level and a first class STEM degree from an RG university.

The only extra tutoring she had was for maths GCSE because she had a poor maths teacher. She achieved a high A* at GCSE maths. She isn't exceptionally bright, but is a hard worker.

It sounds like your friend's DC were either burnt out or weren't as bright as she thought they were.

In the UK kids start comprehensive school at 4

No, they start comprehensive school at 11. I think you are confusing it with state primary.

I live in a grammar school area. Most children start 11plus practice between years 4 and 5. There are a few cheaper preps around that have a reputation of being crammers for the grammar, though I find that idea soul destroying.

The data can't possibly show anything of the kind. It would be impossible to separate from other factors, such as IQ. I suspect it was also be very difficult to gather.

Pre-school, no

Not reception either.

But in private schools, there will be little tests in KS1 and a start to summer exams no later than year 3 (age 7-8)

It means that the DC get really used to sitting exams - they're nowhere near such a big deal if you do them often.

State schools, aside from SATS, are unlikely to have exams in primary (and may not have testing at all, other than spellings and times tables)

How much cramming/drilling depends very much on the school. It can be very bad in the state system, with a Yr6 taken over by SATS drills. It can be very light in the private sector, with a broad curriculum and only one revision week then the exams themselves.

Yes, I guess I was talking from experience of children going from state primaries to either London independents or super selective grammars.

They weren’t that bright. Or at least the last three weren’t.
She didn’t think they were.
Thats why they did all the tutoring.

Its a failing of the grammar system and a non grammar area, like yours, is much better for kids. Those that don’t get in are looked down upon. I think it’s disgusting.

Completely off topic but what's ebteabce?

This is what I've just been told by my daughters teacher! (She is Y4 and bright, and when I said I wasn't sure if she'll do the same 11+ I got a panicked look from the teacher and a lecture about how I should start tutoring now!