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?’

[Userme93]

I completely understand.
We decided late in the day that Ds should do the test...he wasn't tutored other than going through some verbal reasoning questions so he would know what they were.
He passed. He wasnt offered a place on offers day. He was offered a place a month later from the waiting list.
It was a heart stopping few months, him not getting a place made us realize how much we wanted that school, how much he wanted it. We kicked ourselves we didn't get tutoring for him. His friend at school who was pretty evenly matched with him (they were constantly the top 2 marks in tests, with maybe a mark between them) but he was tutored and scored a lot higher...I firmly believe ds would have got in straight away had he been tutored.

As it is.... Ds is flying through school, getting good marks and not struggling.

My 2nd son is in yr4 now....he is clever, top 3 in his class...we'll be getting tutoring when he is year 5 so he has that extra advantage and hopefully gets into the same school. Like someone said...it an insurance policy. I know there's no certainty he will get in but I'd like to give him every chance I can.

[mrsmrt1981]

Perhaps the way forward is to reserve means tested places for the poorest pupils.

Saying that I don’t think it would attract that many families from disadvantaged backgrounds. I grew up in deprivation, and grammar schools/ eleven plus wasn’t even thought about, despite being an overachiever. I went to the local underachieving school and ended up being one of few who went to uni. Although I was lucky, I’m sure plenty were held back through going to the shit school.

[mrsmrt1981]

When I say plenty were held back through going to the ‘shit school’ I just wanted to expand and say it’s not just the school, it’s the home environment, families, etc.

[strivingtosucceed]

Some puzzling views on this thread, on one hand you have people complaining that private schools exist even though most people send them there because they want a guarantee of teaching standards, resources and class sizes. On the other you have people complaining that people are prepping their kids to go to non-private schools for the same reasons. Granted, there should be more funding for schools, but what do people really want?

[rattusrattus20]

Almost no child who's been to almost any state primary has a cat in hell's chance of passing almost any modern 11+ exam without a very significant number of hours' worth of tuition, preferably private or at a stretch by an enthusiastic parent who's themselves almost certainly degree educated.

No-one with even a passing familiarity with the system would seriously dispute the above.

The extent to which this is a good or bad thing is a more complicated question.

[OldQueen1969]

I've managed to read about 8 pages but wanted to get my thoughts down as they've been coming into my brain, which is massively distracted by lockdown and business stuff so forgive me if I'm a bit all over the place.

I went to grammar in 1980 from a small C of E primary school. I had no idea I had taken the 11+ exam. Honestly, we all did a load of green on white multiple choice tests without being told why. There was no concept of tutoring. We weren't terribly informed as 10 / 11 year olds which school we'd be going to - we received our results in the post and I and four others from my school were going to grammar.

My background was poor - broken home etc and although my Mum had been to Grammar, it was in the 50s and the social inequality meant she left and went to a less challenging environment. Poverty, not being able to afford the uniform and extra curricular activities plus bullying from the middle class girls - and teachers - were major factors, rather than her intelligence or ability.

My grammar experience was mixed - some advantages yes, but again, I was well aware that my peers were from a different world. I didn't achieve the potential predicted for me, but am happyish with the way life has panned out.

Fast forward to when my son, at the same primary school in around 2004 coming up to his final primary year - the first I knew that things had changed from my childhood experience and not all children did the grammar school exam any more was at his parents evening when his teacher said there was no point in putting him forward for it. His friends had been tutored and he wasn't up to speed. How I hadn't known this I have no idea. It hadn't come up in conversation with other parents. I felt utterly mortified and stupid and panicked that I had denied him an opportunity.

I discussed it with my DS and we organised some extra maths classes but he had little confidence due to the way his teacher had spoken about it all. He'd done well at school with no concerns and was above average in some areas, and my attitude was that if he made it or not it would be on his own merits. He did take the exam and was about ten points off a pass, and I discovered that state primary education does not include things that the exam does.

My point, apologies for the ramble, is that grammar school used to be an opportunity for the bright but economically disadvantaged to get a shot at an education on a par with private schooling, but that has changed radically, so I agree with the OP broadly.

On reflection, DS wouldn't have fared well in a grammar school environment, and when I met some of his former friends who had gone there as late teens there was an odd air of superiority that I remembered from my own school days, and still, regrettably, a hint of misogyny.

I would prefer to see better state provision across the board and feel that the elitism of grammars and academies is out of step with a world that should be more egalitarian.

[aintnothinbutagstring]

It's not just tutoring prior to the 11+, many grammar school kids will continue the tutoring post entry, as my friend does with her son as it's a tough environment, even her son is naturally bright as well. There's no extra help, the pace is fast and you just have to keep up, this is one of the top boys grammars in the country. Still, the constant tutoring is still cheaper than private school fees.
My DD 'failed' the 11+ but her comp has rigorous streaming so I'm happy she's being stretched academically, she'll sit a GCSE in y9 as they do in the local grammars also.

[Belladonna12]

@rattusrattus20

Almost no child who's been to almost any state primary has a cat in hell's chance of passing almost any modern 11+ exam without a very significant number of hours' worth of tuition, preferably private or at a stretch by an enthusiastic parent who's themselves almost certainly degree educated.

No-one with even a passing familiarity with the system would seriously dispute the above.

The extent to which this is a good or bad thing is a more complicated question.

I would dispute it and I do have a "passing familiarity" with the system. Both my DC went to grammar school and some of their friends who were also there did not have any tutoring tutoring let alone a significant number of hours worth. OP's own child will probably get in despite not having any tutoring. I think tutoring or practising will increase the chance of getting in but totally untrue to say no child can get in without that.

[Belladonna12]

@aintnothinbutagstring

It's not just tutoring prior to the 11+, many grammar school kids will continue the tutoring post entry, as my friend does with her son as it's a tough environment, even her son is naturally bright as well. There's no extra help, the pace is fast and you just have to keep up, this is one of the top boys grammars in the country. Still, the constant tutoring is still cheaper than private school fees.
My DD 'failed' the 11+ but her comp has rigorous streaming so I'm happy she's being stretched academically, she'll sit a GCSE in y9 as they do in the local grammars also.

A small minority of children carry on with tutoring. Certainly not many.

[Goosefoot]

The problem with this is, I think, simple to understand but difficult to solve.

For the concept to work, testing should be about finding bright kids who will benefit from the school, without reference to their economic situation or family situation. So the testing needs to take place on as level a playing field as possible, without extra preparation of the kids.

Of course though the middle class parents who can't afford private education want into this, and they do have the resources to try and game the system. So they do, and give their already advantaged kids more advantage.

But how to stop it? You could say it's not allowed, but it would be difficult to do anything about it.

Probably the only answer would be to change the test or admissions methods. Maybe based on teacher recommendations, school work samples, interviews. TRy to create a test that is not easy to study for. Weigh partly based on tests and partly based on parental income. Or something else/some combination.

[rattusrattus20]

@Belladonna12 - it really depend on the area. e.g. Northern Ireland still has a higher % of GS places/pupils than England did even in the 1960s, I think nearly half the kids go, nearly all without tutoring I should think. I still think there's the odd smaller town here & there [e.g. Ripon up north?] where a pretty a high proportion of kids go. I'm really talking about the ones I'm familiar with in & around London.

My son scored c 140 in his year 4 min-CAT test or whatever they call it and would probably be able to get a GS place untutored if they were exclusively awarded based on multiple choice/reasoning type tests, but they're not, [at least in my area, London outskirts], and as such he wouldn't have a prayer untutored. The kids who take them need to be super strong, earlier in the year than they'll cover most of the material in class, on the entirety of the yr 6 maths syllabus, and be really good at writing, which in all but exceptional cases means they must have repeatedly received really detailed, critical feedback on their written work in a way that just doesn't happen in state primaries. That's why I'm paying for tutoring. But I'm honest and open about it.

[3ismylot]

@rattusrattus20

Almost no child who's been to almost any state primary has a cat in hell's chance of passing almost any modern 11+ exam without a very significant number of hours' worth of tuition, preferably private or at a stretch by an enthusiastic parent who's themselves almost certainly degree educated.

No-one with even a passing familiarity with the system would seriously dispute the above.

The extent to which this is a good or bad thing is a more complicated question.

Well if you look back a few posts you will see that I do dispute this!
2 of 3 of my children not only passed the 11+ without tutoring but also excelled to score in the top 5%
I was genuinely shocked at how much tutoring goes on when we saw the competitiveness of parents when DS1 took his 11+, and from what I have seen those that generally have years of tutoring only just scrape through and then either need continuous tutoring or fall behind because they don't have the natural ability.

However, with that said I am not sure another application process would make it any fairer, in some ways, it is no different to some parents buying houses in the catchment of good schools because they can afford it when families with generations of connections to the schools are being priced out of the area.

[Winecrispschocolatecats]

We paid for a tutor for DS for a while but actually found that the practise papers designed by the examination body (a sample available for free, or a large selection for sale at £100) was far more useful in preparing him for the types of question, the technique required and how to "time" the papers properly. He passed with no issues, we then used the same practice papers the following year for DD (no formal tutoring at all) and she sailed through too.

So it is entirely possible for a naturally bright kid to pass the test with absolutely minimal layout. BUT you're absolutely right in that some kids are coached excessively, scrape the requisite pass mark and end up struggling at grammar school. We have the added frustration of living on the border of two counties that don't offer the 11+ themselves but whose parents/schools enter them for the exam as the grammar catchment crosses the borders - a lot of private school pupils being coached whilst at school really skews the bell curve.

Frankly the entire system sucks and it's evident it does little or nothing for social mobility or for creating a level playing field. It's the price we pay to live where we love, but I'd rather have a decent comprehensive than this archaic system any day.

[matchingsocks]

DH teaches at a highly achieving 500yr old public school (quite a famous one).
They have recently changed their admission tests to reduce the impact of private tuition, as they were getting lots of over tutored pupils, who were not able to problem solve and lacked natural talent. The result is that they struggled to keep up.

[Piglet89]

Private tutoring’s probably a major reason for the merry band of mediocrities running the country right now.

[3ismylot]

@Piglet89

Private tutoring’s probably a major reason for the merry band of mediocrities running the country right now.

[rattusrattus20]

@Piglet89 - maybe, but most of Johnson's inner circle [which is pretty much himself, Dom Cummings, and Michael Gove] are all former public school men [double emphasis on both the schooling and the men bit], as are several other senior members of the top team including Sunak. Only the very most academically selective admission private schools are as hard to get into, tests wise, as a state grammar. Ironically it's probably the comprehensive educated member of the top team, Patel, who's the least bright.

[Dixiechickonhols]

I wouldn’t sit a 3 hour exam without preparation. Expecting a 10 year old who has never sat a formal exam to is just cruel. We are in an area with 1 grammar. My daughter goes. Rest of schools good or outstanding too. What happens is people only enter child if they are likely to pass. Some use tutors for year 5 or prep at home with bond books. 2 local schools get around the no teaching 11+ by having lunch time prep clubs. They get a lot of children in and are popular primary schools as a result. The system is flawed as they are tested on yr 6 syllabus 3 weeks into yr 6. Unless someone has taught the child the maths and vr technique they won’t pass - 1 minute a question in an exam is not the time to work out how to do stuff. There is no ranking. In catchment and a pass rumoured to be 75% and you are in. A ‘top table’ child with some prep will pass. Less children pass than places from catchment. Only 100 out of 150 places fill from catchment. Southern mumsnetters have been disbelieving of this when I’ve posted in past but it’s true. Why put borderline child though stress when other option is an outstanding school in beautiful countryside with very high 5 A - C pass rate. The rest of places go in rank order. Children from surrounding areas do prep for years and it’s more stressful as their local schools are poor. Rumour is an out of catchment child needs 90% plus to pass. Presence of grammar attracts parents interested in education to area and all schools benefit.

[Piglet89]

@rattusrattus20 yes, well - I suppose there are several routes to “thick as two short planks”, as we say at home.

[swangl]

I think that it's fair to say that some children may have had (extensive) private tutoring. However, you can't really say most or many of them do.

My son had zero hour, zero £ for private tutoring. We live in a rural (and probably poor) area, it is impossible to have private tutoring for 11+. There maybe tutoring for children who struggle.
My son passed with a reasonably high (standardised) mark for all of grammar schools (to whom his mark is shared). I didn't even know of grammar schools & 11+ until this year. From then, I bought some books from Amazon and asked him to practice with. I think 4-5 of them.

I know that I cannot say: most of students did not have private tutoring as I don't have the statistics. But so do you.

My point is that you should take it easy.
Because if you don't, your child's confidence/self-esteem/views of the world is likely to be affected negatively. S/he may think that they are not as good or that the world is full of unfairness and whatever they do they will not overcome. Both are not good for their developments.

[jessstan1]

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

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.