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?

We are out of county , one DC in out of county grammar , one in private ( after 5 terms in the apparently good state alternative ) - tutoring is normally 1 hour a week with maybe a few minutes on papers a day in the summer holiday before the test . If it’s too late it’s too late - but your DC will be disadvantaged . A few DC do struggle in Grammar - but from what I can see the tutoring isn’t the reason .

Both my DS and my DD got into the highly selective Reading grammar schools after spending a handful of hours trying some past papers in the couple of weeks before the exam. DD only decided to do it at the very last minute, DS was very ambivalent about doing it at all.So it certainly isn't necessary to have a tutor or to do large amounts of practice to get a place. Admittedly, this was 10 years ago and things may have changed, but I'm not sure that much.

However, if you really care about them getting in, then I would do more. We weren't that bothered. As it happens, I think it may possibly have been better for DS if he hadn't got in and had gone to the very good local comp instead, where he would have been one of the strongest students and probably worked more as a result. Despite the lack of tutoring, he got a bit of a shock when he discovered he wasn't one of the best (far from it), wrote himself off (ridiculously) as "not academic" and rather gave up working. He did ok, but he clearly could have done better.

I went to a grammar school (I was not tutored). So many of my friends there had a terrible time because they weren’t bright enough to be there. They’d fail exams every year and constantly have the threat of being kicked out hanging over them. Back then, teachers would openly tell pupils that if they failed their resits they’d be sent “to the thickos down the road”.

Well-meaning yet pushy parents feel that they’re helping children by having them coached to effectively cheat the entrance system, without considering the effects further along the line.

Kent? You have a very slim chance of getting in without getting tutored. Can’t comment on anywhere else. I have a friend who’s daughter came from a private school and managed to get in - she said not one person in her daughters new class wasn’t tutored to get in.

This is how it used to be - increasingly I find that the ‘naturally bright’ kids who love learning are the outliers and the rest are a bit above average but have parents who will push them forward (not necessarily a bad thing as parental support is probably the single most important factor for success in education). I look back at lessons I used with my KS3 classes just 10 years ago and I just can’t imagine being able to use them now!

My kids did the odd past paper with me from about January of Yr5 and then we did a bit more intensive ‘tutoring’ (by me!) on exam technique in the last week or so of the summer holiday before the 11+ at the start of Yr6. That’s another example of how unfair the system is - it was literally the first full week of school after the 6 week break, so kids who get no input at home are at their most disadvantaged stage of the whole year. They both got a low-ish passing score that puts them comfortably in the bottom 20% of their grammar school year group for 11+ scores. They’re both consistently scoring either highest or amongst the highest in their respective classes on tests in most subjects, which puts them in the top 10% of the year, with no particular effort at extra work (i.e. they work sensibly in class, do their homework and a token bit of revision). Make of that what you will…!

I live in an 11+ area with 2 dcs at GS and must say, the out of county people who wanted put put their dcs into the 11+ were the most competitive/insane about tutoring.

Tutoring varies but few tutor excessively. Norm is a 30 mins session once a week term time in year 5 then one or two sessions over the summer about exam technique. Some don’t do that and just go through past papers with their dcs. Some did do the Easter then Summer courses and the extensive tutoring and practice, but they are definitely in the minority in our area.

You said you’ve done past papers, have you done them timed? If not, I’d do a gentle time system first - they go at their own rate but after the time period you make a note of where they are up to. Then do another one properly timed. (If you use the 2024 Kent Test paper, remember that was a tough one with usually low marks.)

Make sure your dc knows they have 30 seconds per question, so if they can’t get the answer quickly, move on. Also if they run out of time, put B for all the answers they’ve not completely yet.

I personally have never understood why so many people spend money on essentially training their children to pass a test.

Anyone can be trained to pass a test... my concern is how that child would cope day to day in a grammar school if they arent already well above average.

Oh you sound like me last year OP! I’m West Midlands with a couple of ‘no catchment’ grammar schools within a not unreasonable distance, although most children at DS’s primary go to our local high schools as they have a good rep. The upshot of that meant I was pretty unaware of the prep involved for grammar …

DS is bright so I naively thought a bit of home tutoring starting 6 months before would be enough. About 2 months before the test, speaking to someone more local to our favoured grammar, I found out 2 years of tutoring is quite normal! Plus spending a chunk of the summer holiday before the test on intensive tutoring.

We managed to get DS in a weekly 1 hour tutoring class for the last 2 months, plus the home learning. He passed, as in exceeded the qualifying score, but not a high enough score to guarantee a place. Fortunately neither he or I had our hearts set on going to a grammar, but I do kick myself over my naivety that just being bright should be enough.

The Grammar system is a arbitrary test to see if the child has a family culture which values learning PLUS the resources (time + ability of a carer OR ££££ to outsource to a tutor) to support them.

Don't get me wrong, kids absolutely DO need to be clever to pass, but the brightest kid with nobody to fight their corner (parent, teacher or tutor) is not going to grammar anymore.

The ethos of the system has been sold out & it needs to be replaced.

My concern is that we are dividing children at the age of 11+ through what is essentially a glorified intelligence test. Think how many kids miss out on decent education because they, for whatever reason, can't pass on the day. I 100% do not buy the "if you can't pass without tutoring you aren't smart enough for grammar". All it means is you can't pass the 11+ test. Some average or just about kids will have "revised to death" and pass, some really intelligent kids will miss out because they didn't.

If your child isn't that keen on going are they going to be willing to do the practice work anyway?

And if only people could get away from this outdated "bright children will be bored at comps" meme, especially one with a good reputation. There are top sets.

The top set at DD's school was like a mini Olympiad - DD used to roll her eyes at the loud "Oh, how awful, I only got 99% in the test" comments that used to echo round the dining hall.

My DD was always in top sets and had GD in all subjects in her school reports so I was confident that she would suit a grammar school and if they did the test with nobody being tutored that would be fine.

BUT the pass mark is based on the score you need to be in the top 25% (ish) so everybody being tutored artificially pushes the pass mark up. This is why I had my daughter tutored. Although just group tutoring for a hour a week for a tenner per session.

One on one tutoring seemed expensive and unnecessary. But I live in a less competitive area of Kent (more south/east than north/west).

If you know your child would suit a grammar I think it's worth a bit of effort/expense to get them in. I don't understand the bottom set kids who turned up to tutoring though. I know some of these kids had strengths outside of academics and if I'd been their parent I'd have focussed on those.

Hmm my DD wasn't tutored as such. She did get practise papers though. And she got a place in the 2nd highest ranked girls school in Essex. Many of the kids were tutored though

And I was a single low earning parent as well so not rich

I didn’t tutor mine and they didn’t get in (very competitive London grammars). Both left the local comp with all 9’s at GCSE and 3 x A A level (well DD still working towards A level; but predicted 4 x A). I wouldn’t worry about it.

I didn’t tutor mine and they didn’t get in (very competitive London grammars). Both left the local comp with all 9’s at GCSE and 3 x A A level (well DD still working towards A level; but predicted 4 x A). I wouldn’t worry about it.

Agree with this others- particularly that it depends on area

our GS is the only one in our part of the county, with a wide catchment. Last year close to 3000 children sat for 80 places. They take the top 80 marks, there is no pass or fail.

the school communication because suggests it’s cruel to put your children in for the exam without preparing them and I’d agree. The stress of turning up on the day to do an hours NVR in an exam environment is huge.

Yes it’s really odd mainly because most parts of the country don’t even have grammar options- what do people think happen to kids in those situations? 😂

Really? My niece and nephew both went to Kent grammars and it seemed far far easier to get a place than Essex

Well the problem is that in areas with grammar schools the comprehensives are often a lot worse than in areas where comprehensives don't exist. In some areas it's quite extreme so grammar competition is fierce because your kid either goes to grammar or to an AWFUL comprehensive, unless you can afford private school. Just imagine skimming off the "best" 25% of kids (maybe smartest, but often just more academically inclined, tend to come from families with means, more interested in learning etc) and how that impacts the proportions of disruptive children/ those with challenges/ in need to extra resource etc.

We are lucky that our area isn't quite that extreme, but even so.

In Kent I agree, but there aren’t really any straight forward pass/ fail counties with so many spaces I don’t think?

Kent hasn’t changed its system since it was relevant in the 70s. Last time I looked about 20% of children go to grammar. If you cream the top 20% out it will impact the comprehensives, yes (although we have friends and family whose children go to good ones in Kent, but I agree many are particularly bad)

Same, all my nieces and nephews have gone in Kent. About 3-5 from each of their primary school class was going. They were tutored (but not naturally bright) but being in the top handful in your class doesn’t seem as difficult as most areas.

I am talking about Kent, yes. Google tells me it's now approximately 30% - so I reckon my 25% estimate wasn't far off.

I would challenge the assumption around tutored children struggling- this is a risk, but if they’ve all been tutored “within an inch of their lives” they’re all in the same boat aren’t they?

they follow the same national curriculum as any other school, they're not continuing to do NVR 😆 when they arrive. They are likely to be hard working and willing/ focused children- they did the preparation and tutoring after all.

Yes 30% really is high. I agree that’s going to have a detrimental impact

this is why I wouldn’t like to see the return of grammar schools- I will take advantage of them to give my children opportunities but would not support them being rolled out

That's so sad. I wish it was just a test of natural ability so bright children with parents not interested enough to even do schoolwork with them NEVERMIND get a tutor could get in.