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?’

The people I know who have had kids go to grammars have tutored - one couple paid for tutoring, the other tutored their DCs themselves. She did the maths, her DH did the English.

Where we are there are thankfully no grammar schools, DCs both at a comp - it is much better!

The support isn't a matter of money, anyone who has the time and patience can access free material and advice on line to give their child a heads up and practice exam techniques.

^This.

Grammar (for those who want to learn) is the bees knees and kids will do better there than in the local comp, hence the desperation to get in.

Not necessarily true, when I went to high school we had a weird system, the two RC schools were comps. The other schools, a mix of single sex and coed were technically comps but at 14 the 'brightest' went to the grammar school (boys) or the high school (girls) so what was then years 4 and 5 the non RC comps became secondary moderns.

The RC schools beat the grammars in exam results every year.

Our local state primary will not do any work to help kids prep for the entrance exam for the local Grammars. It's nuts that state junior schools will not engage with the selection process for state senior schools.
If primary schools did work with the Y5 kids to support them, the advantage gained by the richer kids being tutored would be eliminated instantly as all the kids would have access to support.

Most parents do the best they can for their child. So if you have read bed time stories to your child and made sure they have access to reading books for the last 8 years then you have given your child an advantage over a parent who hasn’t.

Is that fair on the child? No of course not. But that doesn’t make you wrong. Equally you can’t blame parents who provide private tutoring. They are only doing the same thing.
Having said that, if your son gets in without tutoring, on talent alone, then he should find it easier than those who needed 5 extra hours coaching a week.

The support isn't a matter of money

No, it also relies on a parent who is not, for example, an alcoholic or drug using chaotic individual, a single mum with another child who has high needs (eg disability ) and works shifts, parents who are not yet English speakers, a series of foster carers some of whom are in it for the ££ (oh yes, it happens), experiencing MH problems etc etc.

The children who most need a route out of poverty and other forms of deprivation via education are the ones least likely to be able to access a grammar school.

I live in an entirely selective area and I think it’s cruel to put a child forward for the 11plus if they haven’t at least done some practice papers.
Sending a child in blind with no idea on how to complete the test in the time permitted is just unfair.

Pretty much everyone who can afford it does at least a bit of tutoring around here (1 session a week is about £150 a month). Most start from January of year 4 (test taken at at the start of year 6).

Grammar schools don’t really do what they were intended for - here the likelihood of attending grammar pretty much directly correlates with the affluence of your council ward - the wealthiest areas send the most kids to grammar, the poorest areas the least.

I am still confused as to why someone who has access to grammar school find the access unfair whilst other part of the country don't even grammar!

I am not against them, just pointing the hypocrisy about what is fair and unfair.

Of course people from wealthier family, or family who prioritise education, have a big advantage. Kids who have parents who care have an advantage full stop.

“ It's nuts that state junior schools will not engage with the selection process for state senior schools.”
The whole point of the 11+ is that it is supposed to be untutorable. It is supposed to be fair. If schools were allowed to prepare children it would drive a coach and horses through this myth.
The other question to ask is what would happen to the rest of the class while the possibles and probables were being coached for the test? When would they do all the other stuff they have to do?

the old argument: if the system was fair, ALL school would educate the children at the best of their ability is still valid.

You can't talk about unfair when you are happy about the very existence of grammar school.

“ You can't talk about unfair when you are happy about the very existence of grammar school.”

I’m very unhappy about their existence. Can I talk about the unfairness?

Educational development is not linear and predictable.

Some kids who start off well find that their natural abilities or their determination to work hard peter off (or are squashed by discouraging teachers or parents). Some kids who have trouble at first, may make good progress later.

None of this is linear either. Kids may encounter obstacles at every stage and for every kid that has a set-back and a period of regression there is a kid that overcomes it.

There are a lot of statistics on what influences this progress, some of the factors are natural, e.g. boys tend to mature later than girls so girls have an advantage in earlier education when their concentration and work abilities give them an edge, as well as environmental factors, who amongst us can't think of a good teacher who made them love a good subject.

This deterministic idea that a child that does well at 11+ on their own, will continue to do well in education is very simplistic.

If grammar schools are intended for the less well off then they might as well be just family means tested rather than testing the educational achievements of individual children. Bright children might not do well in exams because they do not know the formal, or the format doesn't suit their abilities, or because they haven't been encouraged to apply themselves, etc.

BertrandRussell
as long as your consistent, why wouldn't you. But people can't have it both ways, and only call it unfair when they feel their own kids are being penalised.

I think part of the problem is that there are too few grammars. In my area there is only one which means tremendous pressure on places. If there was greater availability then more pupils would achieve places and the admission scores would be lower. This wouldn't stop tutoring, but would mean more of the naturally bright but not tutored had a chance of getting a place.

I am still confused as to why someone who has access to grammar school find the access unfair whilst other part of the country don't even grammar!

Here, it’s grammar or ‘high school’ (secondary modern rebranded) no comprehensives. That sounds like choice but the reality is very different.

If your child isn’t suited to grammar, or you can’t afford a tutor, or you are opposed to the grammar system and you aren’t catholic, you end up with little to no choice at all.

We’re in catchment for one poorly attended failing high school; just out of catchment for a miracle-working excellent high school (heavily oversubscribed) and just out of catchment for the one girls non -grammar (miles away from the boys non-grammar).

Our nearest school (5 minute walk) is a grammar with no catchment at all for the top 20% - some children travel 40 miles to school everyday!

Without tutoring we have a choice of one failing secondary modern and a fingers-crossed-it’s-not-a-high-birthrate-year chance at the girls school.

DD is in year 3 and we’re currently in a tutor-from year-4-or-move-before-application dilemma but as she’s recovering from a rare cancer type illness, neither option seems very appealing. She missed most of year 2 due to her illness.

Until we moved here I thought the 11plus was something historical your Nan used to scare you into behaving, ‘work hard at school or you’ll end up in a lampshade factory at 14 just like your mum did’.

The only grammar schools in the area have many ethnic minorities students as do the private schools. Perhaps people spend their money in different ways and education isn't a valued commodity to some families.

Also you would probably find the students from chaotic backgrounds would struggle with attendance and possibly discipline

“ If there was greater availability then more pupils would achieve places and the admission scores would be lower.“
Well that’s going to appeal to the grammar fans isn’t it? Shock horror-some dregs/stagnant water might get in....

It’s a true reflection of life-we don’t all start at the same line.
Not much you can do about it i guess.

As a PP has said though, it's not a level playing field the very least of which is probably paid tutoring. It's also in terms of parental support, discipline, natural ability, school attendance, a peaceful and stable home environment versus a chaotic one, respect for authority figures and probably most importantly expectations from a young age of behaviours and application and taking learning seriously. It's not just about "tutoring".

The fact is that a lot of kids naturally lean into the status quo. So if there is a high percentage of kids from a disadvantaged, unstable, chaotic household/area with low parental expectations then some kids can get caught up in that who might otherwise have not. The converse too - if there is a high percentage of kids from an advantaged, stable background with high parental expectations then some kids will fall into line with that who might otherwise have not. But it's the general crowd who set the tone.

I don't know any stats, but my (non-scientific, non quantifiable) observation would be that top performing non-selective secondaries are in affluent areas where parental expectations, school attendance and expectations of results and behaviour are already high (half the battle) , and/or they have an extremely dedicated and inspirational head teacher (and a team of teachers who share that vision to see it though).

I'm not sure what this means except that schools can't solve all or some of the many home or societal issues that would contribute to a poor school performance, though I'm sure many schools and dedicated teachers try their best anyway.

My son is only a baby so it is too soon to know where his abilities lie, but I will do anything to give him an advantage over others.

Jesus wept, poor kid.

I hope for your sake and your expectations that your son isn’t, like my youngest, autistic and not able to sit in a classroom without suffering severe stress and anxiety. Grammar school may end up so far off your agenda!

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

Middle class, privileged, and most probably, neurotypical.

Oh yeah that’s all true @Judashascomeintosomemoney. Plenty of schools up here that parents pay crazy money for houses in the catchment of to get their kids in. Just as selective to a parent on the minimum wage as a grammar or private school.

I've name changed for this as it's so identifying.

We live in Lincolnshire, in a town with good grammar schools (in some towns, I wouldn't send my kids there) and also a really good secondary modern. My dd, 13, failed the 11+ and is thriving in the top sets of the secondary modern- she'd be struggling at the bottom of the girls high and lost in the middle at a comp.

My ds, 11, has just passed the 11+... He didn't just pass, he got a really high mark- and that is after the standardisation process. Being one of the oldest in his year group, his actual score will have been even higher if not for the standardisation. I know there's little chance he would struggle at the grammar, but a higher risk of being held back at the secondary modern.

He was NOT tutored. He wouldn't even do a single practice paper, and the primary aren't allowed to tutor them. He wanted to to his best and see what happened and he totally deserves his mark! One of his friends has been tutored the entire way through primary for this, got a lower mark but did pass- if he continues to be tutored he will probably cope, if his parents stop that tutoring I believe it will be a disaster for him. So that rubbishes the arguments that it's impossible to pass without tutoring.

My son has some additional needs, so that was not a barrier, and he also receives pupil premium. He did NOT have a lower mark to pass because of this, it is also not taken into account in the standardisation. It will be applied as a priority for application so he is pretty much guaranteed a place (after children in care or with an ehcp) which will be a huge relief not to worry about getting in, whereas my daughter worried terribly that she wouldn't get a place at her school.

He totally deserves his place, purely on ability, not through any advantage- which was what he wanted- except perhaps my being fully supportive of what he wants, and not what I want.

I want my children to go to the best school for them, not squished into a gap they don't fit. My dd is thriving as a result, I'm sure my ds will be just the same. I'm proud of him for being him and doing his best.

I highly advocate the grammar school system, it fails largely where it is abused (one aspect put which would be tutoring just for the exam) but on the whole, it is simply a fine tuned method of streaming.

Woodhill do you think that coming from an ethnic minority and the categories of deprivation I gave as examples are the same thing??

And “Also you would probably find the students from chaotic backgrounds would struggle with attendance and possibly discipline” so it’s fine to keep them out, huh? According to your sweeping generalisation and prejudice.

I work with some of these young people and they are desperate to succeed / make things better for themselves.

Some of these kids are thriving in the top sets of my kids’ comp.

So won’t be contaminating the Grammars in the Grammar areas. Don’t panic.

I find your attitude repellant.