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?’

@TheoneandObi

Pretty sure she didn’t go to Grammar school 😉

@Tvstar

Your comment of 30/10/2019 at 09:49 quite frankly makes you come across as semi-human. How dare you refer to anyones child as a "turd"? The only turd in view is you @Tvstar. How on earth has Mumsnet has allowed your comment to stand???

It does make me wonder what has happened to primary school education if, in earlier decades, no-one needed private tutoring to pass their 11+ and get into the state grammar school. Now they need a couple of years of private tutoring. Really?
Does this not mean our education system must have been dumbed down?

whitley boy. I think it’s to do with change in curriculum so grammar tests have stuff not taught in state primary anymore or Not taught by yr5. The stretching sideways not just letting bright kids move on to year ahead work also means they won’t have covered some areas in time. Plus grammar exams are much earlier now to tie in with the council admissions deadline of 31/10. My mum recalls sitting her exam in March (she had also been moved up a class with 6 others in run up to exam) By March yr 6 the state schools will have covered the maths on the exam. It’s a weird situation that children are tested 2 weeks into year 6 on content they won’t cover until months later so unless some one covers it with them early a tutor or parent they have little chance.

The 11+ system of the 60s that my parents went through and then in the 90s my generation went through is nothing like it is today. Then you did the test and if you passed you went to one local school if you didnt another.

We are in a super selective area now that in the past would have taken students just from the area now people travel a long way.

That and the fact that ours is the entire KS2 curriculum so DD was tested on stuff she wont have been taught at school until jus tbefore the Sats.

Its so ridiculously competetive by some parents though

@Rominiyi

I absolutely agree with you about @Tvstar comment. Isn’t it appalling?!

You and I have not always agreed on this thread but I think you seem like a lovely person. We just have different views and that’s fine. Her comment however, is so far below the belt it does make me wonder what kind of person she is in ‘real life’. Not a very nice one I imagine and judging by her other threads/comments on other posts.

People who have money or adjust their financial priorities are always going to have advantages - it’s just the way of the world and short of communism there’s not a lot that can be done.

A young lad has just got a training contract at our firm purely because his Dad is a Partner. It’s frustrating for those of us who had to slog to get to where we are but it happens

I tutor for the 11+ in area which technically does not have the grammar system but, as the few good comprehensives have small catchments and are oversubscribed, many parents choose the independent sector.

It is not just about the ability of the child. A Year 6 child is taught to achieve the expected level (100/120) in English and maths by May. The child taking the 11+ will need to achieve greater depth (110/120) by January. An untutored child will not have had the chance to cover the whole curriculum at a high enough level. Also, VR and NVR are not taught in state schools.

Part of the process is learning to learn; taking responsibility for one’s own learning, putting in the extra time, knowing your own strengths and weaknesses, being aware what you don’t know and how to overcome this, learning self-organisation, study skills and exam technique. An averagely bright child who is committed and focused will do better than a very bright child who is disorganised and lazy. The skills taught will stand them in good stead throughout their school years.

It is also disingenuous for the private schools to say that no extra work or learning is necessary as the children already in their primary classes will be doing nothing else in the autumn term but practising for the tests. Tutoring levels the playing field for state primary children.

It is possible to prepare without a tutor, but the parent needs to a lot of research to find out what the tutor already knows, buy expensive resources and materials which the tutor already has, and put up with the moaning and resistance which the tutor won’t!

It's perfectly normal not to have tutoring for an 11+ exam, many children just have a bit of tutoring to work on subjects that they need to confirm their strengths on, and in my grammar school, there's just a few very bright kids who had years of tutoring but that struggled in the upper years. If a kid passes the test naturally with a little or no tutoring, then they are more likely to succeed consistently through the whole school.

I took the 11+ with no tutoring at all, didn't even cross our minds. I know I must have passed with a high score because someone in the same town as me was told you've passed but not been offered a place as you live too far away. So it is doable without tutors etc and I think it should be for the people that have natural ability to go, sit the exam and pass.

If someone is not naturally gifted and has to have extra tutoring for years just to get in, it makes me think they'll struggle throughout and may need extra tutoring just to keep up. Whereas someone got in with the same pass mark that didn't have a tutor for years would probably find it easier and get the most out of the education.

My DD had private Tutoring for a couple of years prior to the 11 plus she didnt pass .Went back in the 6th form and passed 3 Science A levels! Now has an Engineering Degree! I think your child is bright and will also do very well .Grammar Schools pass rate is so high these days ,and one of her Teachers told me that she would have probably got in some years before .Also some year groups are smaller /brighter than others as well .

The whole system sucks, but my DS will be having tuition to help him prepare as we get nearer to the time.

I recently got in touch with the local tuition businesses, just to sound out their services/prices and I was genuinely shocked at the attitude of some. A couple suggested English and Maths from Yr 3, with 2 years of exam prep from Y4. Totally ridiculous!

The more measured tutors I spoke to suggested one years' tuition in year 5. I personally believe if my son needs more than that to help him pass a test, he's not right for Grammar school.

The system is skewed unfairly by financial ability like so many other areas of society unfortunately.

We have 3 children and 2 of them are at grammar (3rd didn't quite score high enough), none of ours had any tutoring, as my personal opinion is that if they need tutoring they do not have the ability needed and will struggle at some point to keep up.
Our eldest showed signs of being gifted at maths and science and asked to take the 11+ for fun after his primary teacher mentioned it at parents evening. When we received the results he ranked in the top 5%. Three years later our twins took the exam, one scored just 2 points less than DS1 and the other not quite enough for the waiting list but was already at a good secondary and happy to stay there.

We were on a forum about the 11+ and the number of parents who had spent thousands on tutoring only for them to not gain a place was astounding. Unfortunately, I do not see it changing any time soon.

The problem with tutoring topass the 11+ is that the grammars are then crammed with kids who are not academically up to the work in the long term. The grammars then have to dumb down to allow the dim-but-tutored kids to cope. Its a no win situation for them.

I joined a grammar in 1982 and tutoring to get in was unheard of then. We did a bit of practice in class so we were familiar with verbal reasoning etc. Very different now but luckily i don't live in a grammar area so the dc could go to good schools without this

Those numbers are surprising. In this city there are over 2000 applicants for approx 180 or less places. Those figures are similar for other local grammars.
There is a lot of dishonesty when people discuss 11+
I too passed in the days where the whole class would take it and nobody tutored. I don’t remember it that well but the maths at least would have been covered in school as I certainly wasn’t doing any out of school. I suspect the pass marks were lower but we probably can’t go back to those days. We can’t outlaw preparation now that cat is out of the bag.
As a teacher, I have seen pupils tutored for years who don’t pass. The natural ability does need to be there. If parents ask, my advice is that it will take one year of practice with past papers at probably an hour a week with maybe a bit more in the lead up weeks. This is ample and can be done without a tutor. This is so they can get used to formats and improve speed. Naturally bright children will usually pass with this and many of my pupils have ( this is in a very deprived area). I am happy to provide copied past papers. Excessive tutoring and preparation only really benefits very borderline cases.
As for those saying they did not prepare, I really do not believe them most of the time. They have given these tests to adults ( professors etc. ) and if you are not familiar with the question types, you will struggle. I have had a couple of parents who decided to enter their children but who did nothing, against my advice. Both children would have had a good chance with the level of preparation advised. I actually think this was very unfair to put the children into this without any preparation. They were essentially set up to fail.
The maths and English papers are mostly content covered in the N.C. There are probably 2 or 3 questions that are beyond this level in the maths but they can be solved without the formal methods that you would later cover. Speed is the issue and this is why some practice is needed.
The old ‘ children who have been tutored/ prepared will struggle ‘ is not backed up by facts. The grammars have exceptional exam results. Children who would struggle are not passing these exams.
Also, I have prepared children privately for these exams. I won’t start until the end of year 4 and I will assess them first to see if they have a good chance. I won’t take money and build hopes if it is not the right fit for the child and I certainly won’t take 2 years of money. There are unscrupulous tutors too. All the children I have tutored have passed with the amount of preparation I recommended. I also believe most of them would have passed with similar time spent going through papers and practising timings with a parent.

A Head at my old grammar mentioned the problem of kids being tutored to pass who weren't really up to grammar standard a few years ago. So it must be an issue

@Blackberrycream
As for those saying they did not prepare, I really do not believe them most of the time. They have given these tests to adults ( professors etc. ) and if you are not familiar with the question types, you will struggle.

I think this can really depend on the children and how they approach learning, as I said none of mine had tutoring, I showed them the test paper (10 questions) that came in the registration pack a couple of days before the exam so they knew how to mark their answers and that was it. The two that did well had always been natural self learners who used books and the internet to research questions they had.
I have just graduated with a BSc and my eldest would attend my lectures during his half terms and on more than one occasion he could answer the lecturer's questions when none of the actual cohort could, and this was biochemistry and genetics stuff that he certainly wasn't learning in school!, when I asked him how he knew the answers, he would shrug and say I watched a youtube video. Both of them are like sponges that go looking for answers, even if you have a normal chat around the dinner table, they will question anything they do not understand and then look into it further.

Yes agree op, I have some anti private school friends who think nothing of tutoring their kids to get into grammar

Just seems so unfair. Surely the grammar schools themselves would want kids that have passed with no extra support
But everybody has support, though.
Some parents hire a tutor.
Some parents take the children to museums regularly.
Some parents make their DC read a lot.
Some parents don't allow TV unless educational.
Some parents make sure the meals are full of vitamins and balanced.
Some families have philosophical discussions during dinner.
Some parents make sure home is a calm and secure place, others scream at each other daily.
...

It will never be a completely equal playing field. You don't know if the tutored kids are disadvantaged in other ways. I don't see how the tutoring is different from the other factors.

This is why grammar schools now are fundamentally unfair and support those with the wealth and knowledge to tutor. It makes a massive impact. A lot more emphasis should be placed on continuous assessment and testing where tutoring is harder. Some universities are now focusing on how these can be developed.

But everybody has support, though. Seriously? Many families do not have the money to hire a tutor, or take children to museums regularly. Some do not have the educational background to have philosophical discussions during dinner. "Making children read a lot" is of no use unless children see a role model regularly reading for enjoyment. Soe families struggle to buy food for meals which are full of vitamins and balanced.

@Andysbestadventure

Sorry OP but 🤷

Social mobility is great but grammar schools exist for a reason. If we don't push those who excel then we just end up with an employee pool for specialist fields that is essentially stagnant water.

If people want their children to have that advantage, if they don't naturally, then they pay for it.

@CherryPavlova if the less well off aren't happy with the disadvantage then maybe they should adapt their priorities. We're on a single lower wage income topped up by tax credits. We will be prioritising our DS's education above everything. He'll be attending private schools and they'll be paid for by the full time job I'll have to get when he is school age. That's on top of running two cars, a mortgage, the household, several thousand in debt and every other typical expense. Because we've budgeted for it.

Even on a day basis the costs of putting a single child through the private system just for the senior and A level years would not leave you any change from 100k. Whilst you may well be able to budget for this, you are very lucky indeed to be able to afford a private education. As for the stagnant water comment this is simply untrue. If we were better at identifying talented kids regardless of the economic power of their parents, then arguably we would have much better employees available. In effect tutoring for grammars, and private education for universities bias a system towards the middle classes to the detriment of the economy as a whole.

I would think that, if a child is bright enough to go to grammar school, they wouldn't need extra tutoring. My siblings and I just had our primary school state education and sat the 11+ exam and got into grammar school.

If you need 2 years extra tutoring to be able to get into grammar school then primary education must have massively declined in standard.

I haven't had time to read the thread but my children both went to grammar schools. They did have tutoring to familiarise themselves with the type of questions but only for a few months. The majority of their classmates who got in were similar, I think. Quite a few didn't have tutors but did do some practice questions. I don't think tutors do anything amazing and I could have done it myself. There are people that send their kids to tutors for a couple of years but I doubt it makes much difference to whether or not they get in. Tutors may say it does but they would wouldn't they?

If your child is on the waiting list at number 10, they will probably get in.