How to break bad news - 11+

[GoodIsGoodEnough]

My DC hasn't scored high enough to get into grammar. It was always going to be a long shot with much less tutoring than their peers, but I am still sad for them.

Any advice on how to tell them the news would be appreciated.

Do I give them their real score which is about 30 marks off, or do I say their score was closer (say 10 marks off)?

I hate that at 10 they're going to not feel "good enough". I never wanted the 11+, they got wind of it and wanted to do it. I feel like I've let them down.

I didn't go to grammar and I've read all the stories of people going to comps and doing well, which I'm sure she will, but just looking for some advice on how to handle this immediate situation today.

With your three degrees, including one from a RG university, please demonstrate your reading comprehension skills by pointing out where in my post I claimed that “children who don’t attend grammar schools are not or cannot be high achievers.”

Your posts are quite perplexing.

How are these posts helpful to the OP? If you want to debate the finer points of whether people are truthful about tutoring, why not start a thread. I'd be happy to join in. Believe it or not, some DC do very well without or with very minimal tutoring. My DC had 2 tutor sessions for format familiarisation and got one of the highest scores in the county. It happens. Not a Nobel prize winner but now doing very well at medical school.

Do you think if they had gone to the local comp they would not be at medical school?

If your DC does competitive sport or plays an instrument that requires daily practise, no-one goes waah waah, it’s so cruel.

But pushing your child to excell academically for one year is somehow the worst? Our DC had tutoring for 1hr per week, for 10 months prior to the test. We are in Kent and apart from one family that I know of, no-one started the tutoring any earlier than that.

We always emphasised the point that the tutoring was helping them academically, doing the test was good practise for the future and if achieving a high enough score, it’ll give them more choices.

Both our DC are now in a super selective grammar school, doing really well with good school friends and happy with their choice. MN loves the trope that anyone tutored will just be sad and miserable.

My DCs were told to wear their school uniform ( Kent) it's not clear from your post who the " poor souls" were. What is wrong with being perpared and having exam technique ?

Be honest with them. Kids need to learn how to handle disappointment in life.

Yes, this was my older DC. His primary school was “outstanding” yet failed him a little what it came to Maths. He was always very studious but being quiet and compliant, the teachers just left him to it. His 11+ tutor identified the gaps and allowed him to fly through the test.

Had he not “pass” it would still have been totally worth it and beneficial to him.

I don't believe it would have changed the outcome. He always wanted to be a doctor and he was always motivated to work hard. That wasn't us, it was just how he was. The main thing was that his school was a good fit for him. However, there were a number there who really struggled to keep pace with the learning. I do think it set him in good stead for the volume of work at medical school but that is just one personal experience. Of course you don't have to go to a grammar school to be successful.

No but I have taught in grammar, super selective grammar, private and comprehensive. You’re talking nonsense and you should never ever encourage other people to pass your prejudices onto children. Instead, you should educate yourself as to why people actually put their children in for the 11+

So you’re using exactly my argument that the main thing tutoring (or practice and help from parents at home) gives a child is the confidence which stems from knowing what to expect and how to deal with it! That sounds like an argument for tutoring to me!

I cannot fathom the somewhat curious opinion that some children are being ‘hothoused’ which in the minds of many seems to equate with being taught information and skills they don’t already have, in order to pass an exam. How novel! Can’t think of any other circumstance where that would happen… except every other test and exam they will ever be expected to sit.

No-one seems to think that knuckling down to study and revising hard for GCSEs or A Levels is undesirable or that children are being pushed beyond their capabilities. Quite the reverse. If they fail Maths and English GCSE, they’re required to re-sit them till they pass or turn 18. Why not just tell them they’ve obviously reached the peak of their natural ability and should give up! 🤔

Well leaving aside the crazy “wear your school uniform because it will get you into a grammar school” issue there is nothing wrong with teaching basic exam techniques, and for NV reasoning and Verbal reasoning they do need to have some understanding of how to approach those questions, but for the children who are very borderline relying on teaching exam technique is not going to help them with the faster pace of an academic school where they will always be hovering at the bottom of the class with the poor self esteem issues that that can bring, instead of experiencing the enjoyment of learning at a pace that gives them a feeling of achievement.

@SanctusInDistress They were barely tutored. (you can see their CAT scores if you're that interested!) Had they needed extensive tutoring then I probably wouldn't have had them sit the test in the first place. I don't see that as fair. My husband did not pass and went to a Russell Uni and has two degrees. I am bit confused as to your point. Are you saying that I am saying you can only be a high achiever if you go to Grammar? If so can you point me to where I said that. My DC happiness is far FAR more important than anything else.

@SanctusInDistress Oh, and I DID pass, but got expelled from my grammar school in year 11, went to college and got a bit of a crap job while he is flying high. So get a grip.

May I ask, when your DC attempted Kent Tests before they started tutoring, how did they perform, compared to the actual test?

Exactly this. Plus, the test is a one time shot. Sports/instruments are hardly comparable. It's good your kids didn't feel stressed but if you only did it in year 5 and an hour a week then I would say they were probably likely to pass anyway?

The thing that most posters here are missing, is that the 11+ is not comparable to other things such as playing the piano, or GCSE History. Of course no child would be expected to pass grade 3 piano without having studied beforehand.

This is not the case with the 11+. It is more a test of natural aptitude, reasoning and problem solving ability.

The reality is that tutoring will move the needle only a very small amount for such a test. Any child who sails through would have done so with or without tutoring.

I read these threads and am still amazed that children are not taught exam technique as a matter of course. I was taught it at secondary school some 55 years ago. Its not rocket science, not difficult and helps massively with self confidence both at the time and on through life....really basic stuff like making notes before you write the answer, choosing the order you will answer questions in, managing your time. It has nothing to do with coaching tutoring or intensive study, just simple techniques that really can help.

I disagree that this is harmless and I think would effect your relationship with dd.

I think its important to be honest and support her through her disappointment and feelings of failure (reminding her of course that while she may not have scored highly enough she isnt a "failure"!). Also try to find others in the same position, it will be comforting to her and help her look forward to her new school.

Also re: tutoring: as an ex-teacher, I'm very much of the opinion that tutoring and hot-housing your kids into achieving beyond their natural ability does them no favours – they just end up struggling in a school that's too academic for them rather than flourishing in a school that's more tailored to their skillset.

What is this natural ability people speak of? Tutored children who ace the 11 plus have done so with their natural ability and available educational resources, e.g. primary school and maybe practice papers, their parents' help or a tutor.

The 11 plus is still the only opportunity for less rich parents to get their dc into a school of their choice if they can't afford moving next to the best state secondaries or pay for private education. There is a squeezed middle, we can afford tutoring because we prioritise it over booze, take aways, branded clothes but we can't afford private school or moving to a house near the good secondary.

I don’t know what you think ‘natural aptitude’ really means. How well you perform in exams, even maths and English, depends how well you are taught unless you are naturally incredibly academic. Most students benefit from good teaching and exam practice. Apart from anything else it takes some kids a while to establish best exam technique even if they’re very bright.

So why do people put their children forward for the 11+, knowing the industry that has sprung up from it and that the majority of kids being put forward are being hothoused for no greater advantage than children who go to a local comp or by virtue of living in a postcode that happens to have a grammar school.

the advantage to most of tbe children being put forward is zero, except to satisfy tbe ego of the parent who is able to say ‘my child got into a grammar school’,

grammar schools before the hothousing bonanza (ie.. 30+ years ago) was a very different proposition to the ‘grammar’ schools of today.

At the end of the day, the GCSE and A levels exam will be the same questions, whether you are in private, grammar and state. The only thing that is different is the social class, which I think is the main attraction for parents in the UK. (In Europe, even royals go to state school. People who go to private schools are usually the rich thick ones. Of course not everybody, but that’s the reputation).

The 11+ is essentially a modern version of pseudo class selection.

Xpost snap.

Tutoring can facilitate good exam performance in students who then don’t flourish in a super academic environment, but that happens to students who are not tutored. Superselective schools don’t suit all personalities even if they’re bright academically.

Tutoring can help students reach their potential in subjects and it can lay a good foundation for further studies in the subject.

Private schools prepare their students for 11+ as a matter of course, so arguably tutoring state students merely equalises state with private.

Exactly, you expressed it well.

"So why do people put their children forward for the 11+, knowing the industry that has sprung up from it and that the majority of kids being put forward are being hothoused for no greater advantage than children who go to a local comp or by virtue of living in a postcode that happens to have a grammar school."

Personally 1- i wanted them in same sex schools (they also wanted this) and 2 - the schools are stricter, and enforce better behaviour, so they are less unruly - round here anyway