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?’

YANBU. I went to a grammar school sixth form and was one of only two students in my year who were from a FSM background. The vast majority would have been tutored and coached to get in. I’ve known people view grammar schools as a cheaper option to private education, but to pay for private ‘if they have to’. The whole system is completely rigged. I didn’t get into a grammar at age 14, I remember looking at the non-verbal reasoning questions and having no idea what they meant. Later I went on to get all A’s at A level and a 1st at Uni. Go figure.

@Trafalger

This, this and this again.

You’ve seen for yourself and that’s exactly what I imagined would happen. Then the poor child that passed is missed out.

Completely agree op. Its an unfair system.

@BertrandRussell

My sentiments exactly regarding Shakespeare etc... not sure what the pp was getting at with that.

@ I’m personally not against Grammar schools, I just find the system very flawed and in favour of more affluent families. Money talks and all.... what has annoyed me all the more is that the school website clearly states children do need any specialist teaching etc and that they will have covered everything. It has become apparent that this is not the case.... therefore some are at a disadvantage.

My last post was in response to @when I say I don’t disagree with grammar schools

@fluffycushionista

I mean... arghhttt bludy phones 🤣

@Sillyscrabblegames - it might be a matter of time and patience but those may be things less available in some households for work/ poverty reasons.

All children should be allowed to develop their natural talents - not just those whose parents have the capacity to support them.

We as a society will be a fairer and more creative interesting plce when children are not sorted like sheeps and goats at 11 and the best education only given to a small number.

“ The state secondaries around us boast of their 40% a to c pass rate (or whatever the new markings are!). The grammers are 95% plus a or b in some subjects.
It just doesn't compare. ”

Can you think of any reason why a grammar school might have a higher % of kids getting top GCSE grades than a comprehensive?
A) because grammars are super duper wonderful
B)because kids at comprehensives are “dregs” or “stagnant water”
C)because grammar schools only have kids who will get top grades and comprehensives take the whole
range of ability?

Not forgetting that in wholly grammar areas the non grammar schools are not comprehensive and will have even fewer of the high ability kids than schools where there are only a few grammars.

Try and explain to anyone in another country that we have an education system where some secondary schools are restricted to children who pass an exam which they're not allowed to teach in primary school and they won't believe you.

It's utterly bonkers.

In my experience of Bucks nearly all pupils entering the Grammars are tutored by parents or with a private tutor. Many enter from prep schools (approx 40% I think but the exact figures are difficult to get hold of) they have had lessons in class as how to approach the 11+.

@OrchidInTheRain There's a big debate in New York City right now as they have elite state schools that are selective based on an exam score. There are accusations that Asian immigrant communities are being overrepresented because tutoring is common in their home countries so their children are tutored for years to pass the exam.

newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/10/17/education-equity-nyc-specialty-high-schools-stuyvesant-brooklyn-tech/

More difficult to explain that some areas still have the rump of a system which has always been wildly unfair and geared to middle class and/or privileged children.....

It depends whether you think attending the grammar school is all that beneficial (especially for kids who have been tutored intensively to pass). In an ideal world, it wouldn't matter as all schools would be good and bring out the best in children of all abilities. So that's the real issue. if the grammar school is indeed also the only "good" school locally then yes, it is unfair. Not as unfair as private schools where money is pretty much the only factor taken into account, but still unfair.

My children both go to grammar schools. But because we don't live in a grammar school area, the local comprehensive is still a true comprehensive and a good school (the grammar schools are what is known as super-selective, drawing from a large area, success rate less than 10% of those who choose to take the test, the vast majority don't bother). The grammar school has suited my daughter very well, but I'm sure the comprehensive would have been fine too. For my son the comprehensive may actually have been better. So it isn't the be all and end all.

We weren't that bothered whether they passed or not. They did a few past papers in the 2-3 weeks before the test. That obviously helps and I wouldn't send a child in without that. But I think the marginal effect of extensive tutoring tails off pretty quickly.

I think most get some tutoring. I was vaguely aware at the time, but it was probably more widespread earlier than I realised. Wouldn't have made an difference to our choices though.

I confess that if I lived in an area where the alternatives were dire then yes we would have done more preparation. Not necessarily paid for. And no it isn't fair. But fundamentally it is the disparity of school quality that is really unfair rather than tutoring etc.

In my experience of Lincolnshire I don’t know of any child not tutored, either privately or via their prep.

I agree that the whole 11+ system is flawed and favours more affluent and better educated parents. From what I understand, where I live, you also stand a better chance of being accepted for Grammar if you live out of County.

Out of interest, do grammars do widening participation work like universities do or contextual offers?

Ours have just started to require lower marks from candidates in receipt of pupil premium. And to do local state school visits to less affluent areas.

SillyScrabble well obviously the results reflect the selective intake, and the fact that the most able have been diverted from the comps.

Your grammar results look a lot like the top set results in our local comp.

And the difference is that in a comp your admission and progress does not depend on one test on one day when you were 10.
The later developers can be moved up sets and streams as they mature. Those with chaotic or non-supportive parents who did not engage with the 11+ can be observed by teachers and put in sets accordingly. Students can learn at the right pace for them in each subject.

YANBU.

But it's a bit more complicated than the tutor question. A child with books at home and parents who talk to them and read with them and sit down and help them with their homework will also do better. A child with their own bedroom, enough food to eat and warm clothes to wear will also do better. A child who lives in a calm, quiet home with parents who've been saying "Come on, it's time to do your spellings now," for the past 11 years will do better. A child in a private school will do better. A child with a September birthday will do better than a child with an August birthday.
It is unfair. That's why most counties don't have grammar schools any more.
And sadly, some of those heavily-tutored children will really struggle when they get to grammar school and can't keep up with the pressure. They will spend their whole secondary career feeling stupid and stressed and needing extra support.

P.S the top sets at our local comp are roughly representative of the local demography and FSM average (high!).

Thank goodness we don't live in a grammar school area. We are relatively near one and occasionally I'll hear about the issues that come with the system. I don't disagree with the schools per say, but the level of tutored children now makes it very unfair for those who cannot afford tutoring.

The grammar school my children are in also stated this in their info about the exam. About it not needing a tutor. But then the head has said in speeches "if you've had a tutor, please continue!"
I think it must be something they have to say because the test is supposedly designed to be tutor proof!

Complete load of bollocks because obviously having a tutor who knows all the questions, hints and tips is obviously going to put you at an advantage.

At the school my children were at most have a tutor for Year 5 some also Year 4. I hated the thought of paying £1000s to a tutor so decided to do it myself. I am not a tutor but with a bit of research it wasn't too hard to do. DS was a pain in the butt but DD was happy to do it most weeks.

I do know of a few children that have gotten in without tutoring at all but primary schools round here do now prepare them a bit as the local authority are trying to increase amount of local kids getting places

YANBU. My DD was tutored and now attends a grammar. I'm fairly certain she'd have passed without it but I wasn't willing to take the chance because of you can't beat them join them? The good tutors are booked up before start of year 5 here and we probably spent around £1400 over 18 months. My friend has a DS who is as bright, if not a bit brighter, and he didn't pass. She couldn't afford a tutor.

FWIW I am a product of grammar myself; I grew up in a council house and got in without a tutor- I am now in a professional job and a high earner which has allowed me to afford the tutoring. I am conflicted on grammars but whilst they exist and I have academic kids I would always consider them a favourable option.

Well I suppose in the real world if you can afford it, there's is no harm in one's children having extra tutoring. It's a competitive world out there and nobody wants their children to lag behind. In addition as a parent surely you will know if your child is brilliant enough to pass 11+ exams? So extra tutoring or not you will know your child's ability. Maybe the kids who didn't pass 11+ despite tutoring shouldn't have sat for it in the 1st place? I don't know why some parents tutor their children 2 years in advance to the exams. In my opinion, a 1hour tutoring once a week 1yr or 6 months to the exams is adequate if you know your child is naturally academic or gifted.

Yes agree @BertrandRussell that it's bizarre that the system varies so much in across the country.

“ Yes agree @BertrandRussell that it's bizarre that the system varies so much in across the country.”
The only thing that doesn’t vary is the advantage that privileged/middle class children get.