"tutoring for grammar school is cheating". AIBU to be fuming at DSIL's attitude?

[twiceupinarms]

namechange coz as much as I don't care if she reads this, I don't want her to know my normal nickname.
I am getting my DD tutored for grammar school. DSIL thinks it's cheating if she can't get in without being tutored and will therefor struggle when she gets there. for fucksake, the exams are not based on school curriculum - it's like being a brilliant footballer but been trialled to get in the team on your ability to tie your laces. fucksake.
Anyone else encountered this attitude?
Oh I can add hypocrisy to the list? Her DD audtitioned to go to Stage Boarding School. Did she do any practice/preparations for the audition? Only 9 lessons a week, every week, for 6 years.

AIBU to be cross?

Obviously your SIL is BU because she made a very crass remark that implies your DD isn't very bright.

However, you are being a little bit BU because you seem to fail to understand her point. You say the exam isn't based on the school curriculum but that is exactly the point of the 11+. The idea is to test "raw ability", not what someone has learnt at school, so that if you take 100 children who have never seen an 11+ paper before, you could set them the test and from that work out who are the 20 most naturally able.

Now people can and do argue about whether you can actually measure raw ability, and indeed whether it even exists - after all no child is brought up in a culture-free zone, so there are plenty of influences (school and parents in particular) that will help them pass or fail the test, regardless of supposed natural ability. And of course children develop at different rates.

But if you accept the premise that the 11+ is supposed to test raw ability, then parents who coach their children are skewing the results. So in that group of 100, if 30 have been coached and 70 haven't, you can easily end up with a situation where a middling-ability child who has been coached does better than a naturally bright child who hasn't.

Is it cheating? Well, once you're in a situation where other people are coaching their kids, not really. Most parents want to do the best for their kids. Is it fair? Obviously not.

So the question for you is whether you think your child will struggle at a grammar - do you think she's bright, but needs a little help from coaching? Or is she an average child who might struggle if surrounded by clever kids?

Isn't level 5 where bright kids end up after 5 years in school?? Dd was level 5, as we're all her mates.

I thought the same, TSC. DS1&2 were, and their mates were.

I am so glad to hear that about SGS TSC it's a big weight off my mind. It's apparently able to cope with DS and his extra needs which will probably increase during high school. I've heard it also caters for everyone, not just the high achieves.

I would love DD to go to the school your DD goes to currently, as it is a brilliant school and has a great reputation and it sounds like your DD was well suited to the school too.

Nothing overly wrong, just routine IV AB's for his chest (DS has CF). Gotta go in tues and if he doesn't need O2 hopefully we'll be out shortly after.

*Achievers

Life isn't about 'natural ability'. It's about working hard and putting the hours in.

The 11+ is supposed to be about natural ability. It is now to a large extent about the parent's ability to work hard!

I think your SIL is wrong.

However I do wish there was a fairer test of IQ.

I know lots of very bright children who have been put in for 11+ and all were tutored at home or with a tutor for a minimum of 3/4 months. I don't know of any child who has just walked into the exam with no preparation and passed.

The grammars round here take the top 10% with one school taking the top 2%. If our local school took the top 25%, I think many would all be less interested in tutoring as it would be easier to get in.

But the only way to judge 'natural ability' is to put all the children in an unlit cave for 11 years then test.

I think most who get in SGS are at level 5. I thought the national average was level 4 when leaving primary school, to aim for level 6/7 when sitting year nine sats (if they still have them). High ability children are at level 5 at the end of primary and about level 8 when entering GCSE years.

But I could be wrong?

DS gets extra time in exams and is currently working at sat level four but will hopefully be level five come year six sats.

Or is that not what you meant at all?

Greenformica - grammar schools are not designed to be fair, that is the whole point of the system!

I've worked in a grammar school. Those children that were coached start to struggle before the end of year 7. Even quite bright kids find it hard to cope being only average amongst peers.

i don't agree with tutoring and according to my local grammar they say they shouldn't be and that the 11+ is based on natural ability BUT.......ashamed to say that i am going down that path too (tutoring) as it is SERIOUSLY competative where i live. all girls at the local grammar were HEAVILY tutored and thus i feel pressured to play the game although i think it stinks. having said that, i have looked at dd's Bond books her tutor made me buy. pretty different stuff compared to what they are learning at school thus i think if you have no idea of verbal/non verbal reasoning before exam you may get a bit of a shock. no idea how they can find a way of creating an 11+ exam that cannot be prepared for but would be fantastic if they can come up with something. i think the tutoring thing stinks even though i am doing it too...

it depends which 11+ they do - non verbal reasoning could/should be done without tutoring, but the maths is totally different to NC

agree with wintertime

I hope loads of people do tutor their kids to get it, bring the system down from the inside

I know the thread may have moved on, but this is based on the OP.

My brother went to grammer school. The exams were english, maths and science. He excelled and got in and did amazingly and ended up with a 1st class hons in business at uni.

I didn't get into the girls grammer school. The exams were maths, verbal and non-verbal reasoning. I went to the local comp and got 11 A/A* GCSE's and am on course to get a 2:1 degree. It would of been a 1st but had DS and halfway through and have struggled this year.

I would agree that tutoring to get in, kind of shows your child isn't naturally good enough. However, if they are stupid verbal/non-verbal tests then based on personal experience they are a total fucking waste of time and totally unfair.

In SS grammar schools where competition is high, children will not get a place unless they are clever enough and deserve one. They just won't. The standard is high enough that plenty of very bright children who have had tutoring wont get a place, simply because there aren't enough places for all the children that would benefit from them and do well with them.

Dd passed 11+ with no tutoring but then didn't get in on distance so is going to the local academy

I didn't get her a tutor because I share your SIL's view that it should be natural ability

That being said I don't live in an area with a full grammar school system, in fact there is only one in the county, and there are some really good high schools where the top stream do every bit as well as the GS children

If I lived in a full GS area with secondary moderns I may think differently

I don't know about super selectives, but I haven't actually come across this tutored children can't keep up thing. The tests beat very little relation to actual school work, and the tutoring is mostly about speed, accuracy and holding your nerve. You have to tick boxes very fast and accurately to pass. Once you're in, you are unlikely to need the box ticking skills again.

Both my sons go to a super selective grammar school, and competition to get to these schools is strong. Both my sons had some tutoring, about 1 hour a week for 3 months before the test.

I fully understand why it could seem like cheating, but my DSs went to a state primary, where there is no prep for grammar. Many private schools in our area provide years of tutoring as part of the curriculum , so if my DSs hadn't had tutoring they would have been at a disadvantage before even stepping into the exam room.

As long as there is an 11+ , there will be tutoring, and while in an ideal world children should get in on natural ability, that's not the real world we live in.

At an open evening at a local SS grammar (one of the best in the country), a parent of a potential student asked the headteacher if he recommended tutoring. He replied " Would you send your child for a driving test without having had some lessons first?"

I imagine that with so many tutored children passing the eleven plus that the grammar school can easily set up a bottom set to cater for their needs in the same way that a secondary modern caters for bright untutored children who should have got the place.

In fact it makes the whole grammar/ secondary modern system a bit of a farst. The grammar school has plenty of stupid children and the secondary modern has plenty of bright children with no way of swopping the children to the right class.

I feel that there should be burseries to pay for children from low income families to have a year of small group tutoring. (Ie. children whose family income is less than 20K but have level 3s in key stage 1 SATs)

Brilliant idea Really. Tell the not so low income families that their kids can't get help because they aren't poor enough.

At our primary school there were various afterschool clubs where you pay a nominal charge of £2 for materials for example. Other clubs like football and netball were free. Some clubs are run by teachers, others by parents. (one of the mums was a county class netballer in her youth).

You don't need bursaries or help from the government or your LEA. You just need a few proactive parents and a teacher or two and you have yourself a 11+ Club.