To NOT arrange for my child to be tutored for 11+?

[Spongblobsparepants]

I know I’m a bit late to this one, but it’s occurred to me that every single family I’ve spoken to, who’s child is attempting to get into grammar school, is having their child expensively tutored to within an inch of its life.

I always thought that the point of the gs system was to act as a leveller and allow clever children from all backgrounds to have an excellent education. I remember saying as such to the mums of the two others in their class who are doing the 11+….before realising that they too are forking out vast sums for tutoring.😳

Now in feeling like the idiot, as all I’ve done is shove a few past papers and a workbook in front of my child, to give an idea of what to expect.

It helps that mine is ambivalent about where they’re going, the gs itself is out of county and the local state comp and its sixth form is good. My main worry is my child getting bored and mucking about there to be honest. They’re very bright (not bragging, but it’s true, has been doing yr 6 work for a while) but I’ve not particularly been pushing. I ‘never my fulfilled my potential’ as my mother would say 🙄and am now wondering if I should have approached this as a ‘project’ like the other ambitious parents appear to have done.

AIBU?

If you care about it and want them to have a decent chance then they will need to be tutored.

Locally if you haven't been tutored you have no chance of passing.

Might be different in different areas.

Your idea about it being a leveller is how it should be but unfortunately it isn’t. Plenty of children can be successful in it without tutoring. However, best chances are for those who are tutored which sucks.

It depends on the type of primary education they've received. And how well they are versed in revising for and doing exams.
They cover things like verbal reasoning I think. That might not be something every primary school teaches. I would think if I could afford it then I'd want to give my kid every chance.

It certainly isn't true that the grammar school system is a social leveller. The selection process recognises practice at least as much as it identifies raw ability. The majority of kids who do get in will have been heavily tutored. But if you have a decent comprehensive school near you, I can't see an issue really.

I would scrap grammar schools altogether if I could.

I'd say that most who get a GS place will have been "tutored" to some degree. Obviously some a lot more than others. Some of the subject matter hasn't even been taught at primary school by the time of the 11+ exam, so that puts the child at an immediate disadvantage if they've had no tuition at all.

At the end of the day, like all things in life (employment, relationships etc), it's a competition to win a GS place, and those who've had a lot of tutoring are more likely to get a higher score and therefore "win" a place than a child who's not. It's not as if it's a fixed pass/fail scoreline, because there's a limited number of places.

It all depends on the area. In some highly sought after schools, entry marks could be 90% plus but in some regions/areas, the entry mark may be 60-70%.

Personally, I don't think putting a few past papers in front of the child to do over the summer holidays is enough, however brilliant/bright the child is. Yes, they may get a "high" mark, but if others have been working harder/more on practice papers, they'll probably get a higher mark and secure the place.

Locally to me, if you haven’t prepared, you have no chance. This doesn’t mean you need to have been tutored. But you do need to have practised the question types, you do need to know the layout, you do need to be used to working accurately at speed…
Here though a grammar school isn’t the only way to go well (ie very good comprehensives also available)

I agree with you OP that it is sad it has come to this. You are right, when the 11+/grammar school system was introduced it was meant to give a leg up to bright children from all backgrounds and improve social mobility.

The area I grew up in had abandoned it and gone comprehensive when I was that age; but PILs, who were both from very working class backgrounds, both got in to grammar school and I think it made an enormous difference to their career prospects and life afterwards.

These days, where it still exists, it seems to have become a perk for the sharp elbowed middle class who can afford to have their children crammed by tutors. It's a pity that the schools cannot devise a selection process that cannot be prepared for but can measure raw ability.

I think it used to be a social leveller up to the 70s as most towns had grammar schools and more pupils (overall) went to them, there was also less (if any) tutoring and the 11+ test was done in mainstream schools, and generally covered work already done in the primary school beforehand. Back in those days, it would be the kids who were generally in the top third/quarter of the class who'd get a grammar place.

Your idea about it being a leveller is how it should be but unfortunately it isn’t. Plenty of children can be successful in it without tutoring. However, best chances are for those who are tutored which sucks.

Well you have expressed the reason I am against these schools. They provide private style education on the state for well off parents who can afford the tuition.

You could do a free week of Atom learning now, and then pay for the rest of the month if you want to increase your child’s familiarity with the format and exam technique.

my children have been through selective exams and of course I helped them prepare when they were 10 years old. Not a huge amount, but a little bit makes a difference when the competition is so strong and children without preparation are at a real disadvantage.

My kids are both at grammar and neither had tutoring. They did, though, go to a good primary school. It’s definitely not a fair system.

I hate this "to an inch of their lives" thing. Always said by people who choose not to tutor, normally smugly as though people who tutor are trying to dress up their thicko children as clever. That, along with, "if they can't pass they just aren't smart enough".

We tutored DD. The 11+ is incredibly complex, and getting increasingly so. There are so many questions that you need to have seen before to understand what to do with, especially on a very tight timescale. I am very academic (think top of the class, educated to masters level, high IQ, etc) and couldn't manage loads of them on first sight. DD wasn't tutored "to an inch of her life", she was introduced to and practiced the main type of questions so she was familiar with them, and with how the test worked. This was done by a tutor as me and DH both work full time. As it happened she didn't pass (just!) - she's intelligent (her tutor was adamant she deserved to be in a grammar school) but unfortunately also really quite dyslexic and has issues with processing text. As such, despite being bright a test like the 11+ is almost impossible, even with extra time.

I hate the 11+!

I remember being given practise tests to do at home, in my primary school, but that was all, only a few took it so there was no real preparation, but that was years ago.

I would get some old tests let them do them, like a proper exam and mark them, see how they do. I would have thought a few lessons from a tutor would be all they would need, just so they are not surprised by some of the questions.

It depends. Do you want them to get in? Every other child will be tutored, so if yours isn't, you're putting them in for a race and starting them some distance back from the starting line.

I agree with OP. My son is taking the 11+ next month - he has not been formally tutored, but we’ve done practice tests at home and he’s sat 2 mocks run by the grammar school. If they have to be tutored so heavily then I don’t think grammar is right for a child.
for what it’s worth - atom isn’t tricky enough for the mocks my son sat: we’ve been doing Examberry and exam paper plus tests and cgp 10 min tests. We don’t sit verbal and non verbal in our area.
what will be will be - only you know if your child would respond to tutoring

I agree with OP. My son is taking the 11+ next month - he has not been formally tutored, but we’ve done practice tests at home and he’s sat 2 mocks run by the grammar school. If they have to be tutored so heavily then I don’t think grammar is right for a child.
for what it’s worth - atom isn’t tricky enough for the mocks my son sat: we’ve been doing Examberry and exam paper plus tests and cgp 10 min tests. We don’t sit verbal and non verbal in our area.
what will be will be - only you know if your child would respond to tutoring

My children went through the 11 plus system with no tutoring.
Two went to grammar school, the other two to a very good all ability school. I've no doubt you can train children to do really well in these tests and tutoring plays a huge part.
I live near a lady who does 11 plus coaching and always observed the range rovers, personalized number plates etc sitting outside her home in the lead up to the 11 plus.I don't know how a poorer family can ever compete with that although I know one parent who became so adept at the tests that she tutored afterwards.
There's a huge industry around this in Northern Ireland and there should be a lot of material available if you choose to go down this route.

I also wonder what people think the difference is in the parent tutoring a child and a tutor tutoring a child. As though if you outsource it it is somehow cheating but if you do it yourself it's ok?

My DD passed the 11+ without any tutoring. However, we did do lots of past papers with her, as a lot of it is exam technique and getting used to the type of questions, which they won’t be familiar with from school.

I think it also depends on area, as some grammar schools are more competitive than others.

My DD passed the 11+ without any tutoring. However, we did do lots of past papers with her, as a lot of it is exam technique and getting used to the type of questions, which they won’t be familiar with from school.

I think it also depends on area, as some grammar schools are more competitive than others.

Again, you know this is pretty much exactly what a tutor will do right?

I didn’t tutor DS (he is AuDHD and it could have been a total waste of time and money if he didn’t gel with the tutor) - I just worked with him at home. He scored the pass mark only.

I didn’t want to run that risk with DD. In Bucks, the pass mark threshold is determined by the cohort that take the test, so if more extremely bright and very tutored children take the test, the threshold is harder to meet. Shouldn’t be how it is, but sadly that is how it currently works.

Total bollocks.

I had one session with a tutor who said I didn’t need it, and I passed with flying colours.

OP, it’s up to you whether you want to tutor them or not. I would say, a lot of the children who had tutors struggled in the first couple of years.

Trafford

A) you have to be able to afford to live in Trafford, which is an increasing difficult task in itself.
B) you may compromise area so you are in Trafford because currently the score you need to get in from out of area is huge
C) if you compromise area and you don't get your kid into the grammar they end up in a really shitty school, so the stakes can be really high for some of these kids. One you are in the school you can move beyond the Trafford boundary to somewhere cheaper - like leafy nice bits of Cheshire East (!) which is mad in its own right.
D) why WOULDN'T you tutor your kid if they are bright and reasonably able?

Honestly I find it crazy.