To be frustrated that Grammar schools are full of private tutored kids?

[Sammyp235]

So my DC sat the 11+ and passed it and was placed on a waiting list (number 10) to get in to local Grammar school.

490 kids sat test and there were 150 places provisionally set aside for the kids who scored the highest.

Now of it was an even playing field then that absolutely fair enough, but I know that it’s not. Many parents ‘prep’ their kids with a private tutor for years in some cases.

I know this as I have a couple of friends who are private tutors and we’re surprised when I said DC was going to sit the entrance test without any previous tutoring. They both advised they’ve tutored kids for up to 2 years prior 😳

There’s a child in DD’s class who’s had years of private tutoring and secured a place (it’s common knowledge and said child happily discusses it with other classmates and it was with the purpose of getting in to this grammar school)

I’m frustrated that the schools website says you don’t need any extra tutoring. The reality is that should be the case, but that leaves those that can’t afford it at a disadvantage as there are definitely plenty of kids that get the extra help then get the places.

There’s 3 kids in DC class that all have private tutors and all secured a place.

I’m of the opinion that if you need a private tutor for you DC for several months/years to pass the 11+ then perhaps it isn’t the school for your DC.

I find it annoying that so many kids have the advantage over others and take up the places. Of course if you have the money then fair enough, why wouldn’t you get private tutors in. I don’t blame the parents, but I feel that school should not have stated you don’t need extra tuition. You absolutely do as your up against it if not!!

I just feel frustrated for those kids that have a natural aptitude and academic ability, but are up against those who have been tutored to the max. It’s not an even playing field at all.....

Oh and I had to laugh to myself when one of the said mums asked me what ‘rank’ my child was placed in (none of her business) and said ‘oh so out of 500+ places your DC is 160th most intelligent 😳..... I was dying to say ‘erm actually it wasn’t an even playing fiend though was it?’

[jessstan1]

sneakysnoopysniper, you are dead right. Everyone should be well prepared for exams - but you don't necessarily need a private tutor for that.

[sneakysnoopysniper]

I dont have children but I do know that preparation and exam skills are everything in passing examinations and therefore securing places and qualifications. I was a mature student when I returned to education. I was competing against students 20+ years younger and often from much more privileged private school backgrounds. They were practised in education and exam techniques. I had been out of education for many years. However I had good time management skills and determination.

I took examination techniques very seriously. I studied past papers. In the weeks before my uni finals I abandoned my friends and my social life. I built a bed on the floor beside my computer. I ate when I was hungry. I slept when I was tired. I lost track of night and day.

But I made myself the absolute mistress of the 45 minute essay.

When I turned over the exam papers for my 5 courses I could have answered any question on any paper. It gave me such confidence. I knew I was writing a 1st class answer. I graduated with a very good 1st and went on to complete a masters and a doctorate. I am not by any means brilliant and there were more gifted students than I at uni who ended with a 2/1.

When I went on to work as a lecturer I always stressed the importance of exams skills to my students.

[hansgrueber]

@57Varieties

The only thing that doesn’t vary is the advantage that privileged/middle class children get

Middle class, privileged, and most probably, neurotypical.

Privilege exists and will always exist, even the simple act of encouraging your child to be well read, to take an interest in numbers creates 'privilege', such a dirty word these days. Parents of all socio-economic groups can encourage their children if they want.

[hansgrueber]

@C0ldtea

Prime numbers are taught well before then and are easy. They’re part of most primary classroom displays. Ditto algebra to a certain degree.

But I've seen more than 1 Primary school display with 1 as a prime number! It's to do with the definition, 'divisible by itself and 1', the source of many a pub quiz row. Stick to 'a prime number had exactly 2 factors', no room for argument.

[jessstan1]

ittakes, yes you are probably right that private schools do prepare children for 11+ - without them even realising it! They just teach and put emphasis some things that other schools don't. Everyone passed in my son's year.

[ittakes2]

It’s not just the private tutors - private schools prep their children for 11 plus very early.
I completely agree with you - although also had my kids privately tutored even thought they were too set as everyone does and didn’t want to disadvantage them.

[jessstan1]

I wonder when the emphasis on private tutoring started.

I've known older pupils having tutoring in a subject in which they are a bit weak and need a bit of a push to pass, eg GCSE, but for 11+, no. My son is 41 and wasn't tutored for 11+, his school did a good job.

[swangl]

@MaybeNew

I think that the rise of tutoring is fuelling greater inequality in society and causing mental health problems in children. It’s usually done by people who pretend that they don’t believe in private education but ruthlessly grasp every advantage for their own kids with raptor like efficiency or people who like the status of an elite education but aren’t prepared to pay for it.

Frankly, both types are hideous in my opinion. Grammar schools should be for the naturally bright and you shouldn’t be able to buy your way up the list with tutoring.

I agree with the part "you shouldn't be able to buy your way ..." (into a grammar school)

I disagree with the part (tutoring) "causing mental health problems in children". It's the parents' faults to cause any "mental health problems in children" directly or indirectly. Often these are the cases of putting too much pressure and probably over tutoring in extended periods of time.
What's the point of forcing your child to an environment completely overwhelming their ability and end up unhappy.
Academic ability only decides a part of successes. I think that social skills e.g. getting along well with colleguages, being honest, having integrity are more important in determining their future prospects and happiness.

[JanewaysBun]

*none
Sorry typo and 🍷

[JanewaysBun]

I'm 34 and non of my classmates were tutored but our GS is in a poor ish area so tutors were an unknown quantity!

The problem is, once one does they all will. I'm in the Kingston GS area so will be looking more to the comps for my DC as it's so ultra competitive for the GS

[MaybeNew]

I think that the rise of tutoring is fuelling greater inequality in society and causing mental health problems in children. It’s usually done by people who pretend that they don’t believe in private education but ruthlessly grasp every advantage for their own kids with raptor like efficiency or people who like the status of an elite education but aren’t prepared to pay for it.

Frankly, both types are hideous in my opinion. Grammar schools should be for the naturally bright and you shouldn’t be able to buy your way up the list with tutoring.

[modgepodge]

I haven’t read the full thread so someone may have already said this.

Where I live, one county everyone sits the same exam. There is a set pass Mark (121), and there’s no benefit to getting over this Mark. A child with 149 will not be higher priority for a place than a child who scrapes 121. All those who have passed are then ranked by distance from the school. In this instance, a bright child will pass, with no tutoring, though a look through some practice verbal and non verbal reasoning questions for a few months would probably be wise.

In a town about 15 miles away, the 11+ is very different. Everyone sits the exam, and they then rank the scores. The top 100 scores get in. There is a pass Mark, but it’s irrelevant, because no one who gets that Mark gets in - it’s usually about 10 points over that Mark. In this instance, clearly tutoring is a huge advantage. A bright child will probably pass, but get a lower score than an equally bright child who was tutored for a year or 2, and therefore the non tutored child won’t get in. To be fair though, in the past few years they’ve changed their admissions criteria and now allow any child eligible for pupil premium in as first priority, provided they get the pass Mark. So I guess a bright child who is eligible for PP but couldn’t afford tutoring will get in, which seems fair. I suppose there are plenty of people who don’t qualify for PP, who can’t afford tutoring, and they will still be disadvantaged.

[Sceptre86]

Not sure what your issue is, my db went to a grammar and he had tuition for a year leading up to the exam. My parents had three other kids, dad worked long hours and my mum left school at 16 and was not equipped to help him. These were the days pre Internet so you couldn't just Google for practice exam papers to try. They had to make sacrifices to be able to afford it and did the same for my younges sister. Both got into the grammar school, aced exams and uni and have professional careers. They didn't need tuition at any further points during their learning. They are the type of kids that grammar school is intended for, poor bright kids who need a leg up.

It is never a level playing field. My brother found it difficult to get the necessary work experience before he applied for his degree but was able to get it due to the fact that I knew of hospitals that would take on students and had volunteer programmes so he could get an insight ( I am older and had already been through the process). There were other kids on his degree who had drs for parents or in their families that were able to secure placements for them to shadow them much more easily.

We do not have grammar schools where we live and I think children can succeed having been to a comp as long as they put a lot of effort in and parents help fill in the gaps (themselves or by paying for tutoring if necessary). I am all for lobbying for better schooling for all children but it doesn't change the fact that some schools are failing and kids there are not getting adequately taught.

[Charleyhorses]

The provision of Grammar Schools is inherently unfair.
You joined the game. You knew the rules.

[LadyTiredWinterBottom2]

Richer people pay for their (sometimes) dunce kids to pass a test and continue the over privileged cycle - this is not new. Why are you surprised?

I think some parents set their kids up to fail because they can't sustain it.

Is it fair? Prob not, but it's not going to change.

Woman l know went to private school works as a bar maid 🤷‍♀️

[Macncheeseballs]

I agree op, it's a shit system

[swangl]

@Figuringitout

It does also depend on the grammar. In our area kids that pass the test -but who qualify for FSM - (so basically the families that can not afford tutors) guarantee a place even if their pass score was lower than the others.

Most grammar schools have this policy which I don't agree with.
The selection should purely based on academic ability regardless of the chidren's backgrounds or catchmens.

My son is at the bottom of the priority list. We've never received any benefit nor FSM. Our house is literally 2-3 hours away from all the grammar schools.

[swangl]

I think that grammar school system based on ability is in principle a very good idea for the society, which should ballance between equality and competitiveness. Too much leaning on the former would lead to stagnation, lack of incentives for striving forwards.

I do understand that some parents may feel disappointed as their kids could not pass for various reasons. However, it is important not to show or let the kids know.
At the end of the day, it's their happiness and developments as a good & healthy person that mattter the most.

[keeprocking]

@batvixen123

Honestly, I think it makes a joke of the whole grammar school system. They aren't remotely meritocratic. I'd like to see the 11+ abolished everywhere.

Up until the destruction of the grammar schools for quasi-political reasons very very few were tutored, there were plenty of places to go around. The whole ethos of the tri-partite system was ignored and we now are expected to cram all children into the grammar school mould no matter how it doesn't necessarily suit theiir abilities or personalities. A child hot-housed for the grammar schools will be unlikely to cope with the pressures that a highly academic education creates, what then?

[Lalaloveyou2020]

The system is so messed up, the 11+ shouldn't be a thing. All children should be educated in the same manner until GCSEs then after have the option to go forward for A Levels in colleges that might have different specialities (academic, more practical etc) or go into an apprenticship.

[FoxInABox]

Agree OP, it is incredibly frustrating and takes the fairness out of it. My DD missed out on a place in the only grammar school remotely local to where we are. She is top of her class and very bright. She hasn’t been tutored though. I know children in there who still have tutors to help them with the homework as they struggle. I’m gutted for DD as the school would have been ideal for her, she gets frustrated with other children being silly in class or disrupting the lesson, and in the local comps that is a common occurrence.

[Figuringitout]

It does also depend on the grammar. In our area kids that pass the test -but who qualify for FSM - (so basically the families that can not afford tutors) guarantee a place even if their pass score was lower than the others.

[Oysterbabe]

My MIL is a private tutor and primarily is hired by parents hoping to get their kid into the local grammar school. She has children starting with her from age 4. The children who aren't tutored are at a huge disadvantage.

[VestaTilley]

YANBU- it’s inherently unfair on those children whose parents can’t afford tutors, and it is gaming the system.

Unfortunately people do it to ensure their children know the ways to get through the verbal reasoning etc tests- without some tuition that may flummox a child who is technically bright enough. It is very unfair- but then the whole grammar system is cruel and unfair, so...

[jessstan1]

Good on your daughter for getting into the grammar without extra tutoring, that shows it can be done.