Should I have coached my child for 11+?

[PigeonPairinSomerset]

My child starts secondary in September. She sat the 11+ for a top rated grammar school in the SW and did not gain an eligible score. We were advised by the school at open day not to coach her at all. They insisted their exams are unique and coaching wouldn’t help. They also said that they want children to be able to cope naturally with the workload and not to have had extra help. We found out her standardised score was very close to eligible. We are also now hearing that the vast majority of parents ignore the advice not to coach and some kids have been in tuition for the 11+ for years. I can’t help feeling we have let our child down. The state secondaries where we live are mediocre at best, and we we can’t afford private school. Would you have coached your child? Are you someone that did or didn’t? It’s too late to change the outcome now but I’m interested to hear your opinions!

The old kids will do well anywhere bollocks
My cousin was far cleverer than I was throughout primary school. She went to a sick school. I didn’t. who got pregnant at 17. I’ll let you work out the answer?

OP, if your daughter is bright, which she must have to have come close to it, she'll be fine in a mediocre school. Both my kids went to a below average secondary. No grammar schools where we are and I wasn't not prepared to pay for private education.

Both have done very well. One had three medical school offers (average 6th form too), and come 2nd of her year group, outranking those who had been privately educated all their lives (number one was international).

The other has taken a less elitist route but is doing brilliantly in their first job, awaiting a promotion after under 12 months.

Don't worry. Just keep an eye for poor teachers and pay for tutoring in that subject. If they are determined to do something, they'll succeed.

who got pregnant at 17. I’ll let you work out the answer?
How is that related to academics? A colleague of mine got pregnant at 17 too when she was privately educated. A friend of the family. She had her son, who age raised alone, went to Uni, then had a Masters and has a great career.

My mum taught at a grammar school for years.

Lots of kids are coached to pass.

BUT... my mum also said that it was really sad to see kids that have passed due to heavy coaching, and then spend 5 years struggling with the work load and always being bottom of the class. It's not nice.

It tells you your daughter is bright but perhaps would be better off and thrive more at another school?

We’re also in a grammar area in the SW. Never heard of anyone getting into grammar without tutors. Even friends who left 25-35 years ago say overwhelming majority were tutored. Some parents pay for private primary in order to prep them for 11+. My youngest wanted to try 11+ but her tutor didn’t carry on during COVID lockdowns and all other tutors had waiting lists so she decided not to sit the 11+ even with us prepping at home. She’s going to join for sixth form, GCSE grade depending.

Yes we did have our son tutored for the 11 plus from year 4, however this was to get him use to exam format and help with things he was stuck on, he would have coped with the workload regardless. I guess what they are saying is that once they get into the school they need to be able to work to a high standard and if they are only getting high marks because they are coached, it may not be right for them. I don’t think you let them down, you just made a decision based on the info you had. You could always try again next year if your child isn’t happy in their school.

If I really wanted them to get into that school (which it sounds like you did), then yes, I would have.

Honestly though, school sounds a bit wanky. The second reason makes a bit more sense, but the first part, that their exams are so super special and unique that coaching won't help, is just nonsense. There are only so many types of questions school related tests can ask!

Even if the actual questions are slightly different to other schools, all kids will benefit from practice and tutoring in how to read questions properly, how to write clearly, how to formulate answers, show workings out, etc. Not to mention general subject related stuff like going over maths, grammar, and so on, all of which if a kid is shit-hot on it could make the difference between meeting the required score or just missing it.

Regardless of the questions they ask, a super bright kid who doesn't pace themselves so writes loads for the early easy questions and then doesn't have time to do the final hard ones, or who writes incredibly well but goes of on a tangent and doesn't answer the actual question set, or who solves the complicated maths question in seconds in their head so just writes the answer,
might miss out to a tutored kid who completes the whole test, answers the exact question and includes their working out when the question specifically says to record this, etc.

Fair or not, there's a reason most families do tutor!

We are in Herts and everybody tutors here for the 11+ exam and many don't make it even with the tutoring. There are 4 grammar schools in the area and on average 10 kids compete for 1 place. Our son is very bright and always worked above expectations but it was only enough for the 4th choice school (still grammar, but not the best one). The only child from my son's school who got her top choice school was a girl who had daily 1h tutoring in the summer holidays. So if the school tells you that a bright child will get in without tutoring, they are lying. Even our primary told us we needed a tutor to pass.
Of course a bright child will do excellently even in the comp, but they will not have the same opportunities, like sports or competitions, interesting hobbies, music rooms, etc.

There was an article in the guardian recently about a landmark study finishing which found that splitting children into ability sets does not have a significant impact of the lower ability children's attainment but it does have a significant impact on the higher ability children's achievement. The argument that streaming children by ability is bad for the less able kids and they get left behind was debunked once and for all and the benefits for the children who are streamed upward can't be ignored.

It is reprehensible to take that knowledge and just shove them all together so the higher ability children get bored and don't reach their full potential to save the self esteem of the lower achieving children who won't do any better for it anyway. At that point you're just holding back the high achievers out of spite to make sure everyone gets the same.

High ability children deserve an environment where they can flourish and it's not their fault that working with children who abuse the teachers makes teachers want to work in better schools and avoid the ones with bad Ofsted ratings. Teachers deserve to work in a nice environment, we all do. All of my friends who are state school teachers are leaving in droves because of the way the children behave and some are assaulted regularly. Taking the grammars away and subjecting everyone to that environment won't improve it, it will just crush the aspirations of the quiet bright children. It's not fair.

No one 'fails' the 11+ they just don't rank highly enough and at all stages in life there will be people who are better than you. It's a lesson we all need to learn.

I used to tutor groups for the 11+. Out of an average group of 8:

2 would have easily got in without my help.
3 would probably have got in but definitely gained confidence and felt better for having had the tuition.
2 were never going to pass regardless of how many sessions they did
1 was right on the borderline and tuition may have nudged them over the line, but probably ended up struggling at grammar school.

It sounds like your daughter is in that last group and it will be better for her to be top set at a comprehensive than the worst in the class at grammar.

I have never known a child not to be tutored for the 11+

I would imagine that if you coach for the 11 plus, your child will quickly become unstuck when they get to school.

I've known quite a few who just did a few practise papers and books at home. I've also known children who have come to me for tutoring and scored 96% on the first practise paper I've given them on Day 1. Their parents have been told that they need tutoring for the 11+ but they didn't need it.

We did some practice papers but that’s it. The school in question doesn’t use any of the “standard” 11+ paper forms, so they said it would be pointless practising as their papers are unique.

This is our plan now, to get tutoring to help her through secondary. She is due to ace her SATs and likely to be in top sets at secondary. I’ve heard that even in mediocre schools, top set kids tend to move through the school in a bit of a “bubble”, as they’re in classes with the least disruptive kids and best teachers. We are supportive parents, I wouldn’t say pushy at all. We just want our children to do well in school.

Thanks for saying this. We will support her to the best of our ability of course. Just absolutely kicking ourselves that we took the school’s advice at face value and didn’t coach her, when clearly all the other parents did :(

Hmm I don't see how it is " failure" not to pass 11+ when so few kids do it never mind pass it.

About 1 in 10 kids if that go to grammar schools here. Doesn't mean the 9/10 are failures

I didn't coach my daughter for 11plus. Did get a few practice papers and explained the format

If you think about it OP, there will be other kids at your dc’s school who were also borderline or didn’t bother sitting the 11+. So you’re right - there’s usually enough kids to scrape together a Top Set. My dd is in a non-grammar area and her school is heavily into setting from Y7 for the “core” subjects. Sets are really helpful when there is a huge ability range and I agree your dc is likely to find this means they can perform well in a school that has the full range of ability top to bottom.

I’m really sorry. Everyone does tutor for the 11plus. I can understand why you would feel upset. I’m sorry school or friends didn’t share this with you. I think in the circumstances you did what you were told was the best thing. It’s regrettable but I think now the best thing is not to dwell too much on it.

We live in SE London and various classmates and friends’ kids are trying to get into the Kent grammars. They have all been tutoring since at least year 4, some even earlier, and honestly it looks soul-destroying (and frankly it doesn’t even seem to be working, DS’s primary class is streamed by ability in English and Maths so I know that none of these kids are working at GD).

But yes, most parents aiming for grammar tutor heavily.

Yes I would have arranged some coaching. Knowing fine well others will have done so and your child is competing against every other child.

Life is not fair. With schooling you do have to be on the ball. It’s not the olden days where you just go to your most local school and crack on.

Depends what you want in life.

Get ahead of the game now and make sure your child knuckles down, doesn’t get in a bad crowd and isn’t distracted by the chaos. There will always be some children who do well wherever they go.

Put it like this OP. When your child is doing their GCSE exams, do you expect the teacher to not only teach them content, but also teach them exam technique too? I imagine 11+ involves some technique too as others have described.

Send your child to the comp and pay for tutors while they are there. This is what we did and it has benefited them tremendously.

I haven’t criticised streaming children in sets according to ability anywhere in my post, so I don’t know why you are responding as if I have. I have objected to having entirely separate schools for children whose parents can afford time and money to coach them to pass an exam aged 11.

the pass/fail vs rank position is semantics - you either get into grammar school or you don’t, and it depends on how you perform on a exam.

“It is reprehensible to take that knowledge and just shove them all together so the higher ability children get bored and don't reach their full potential to save the self esteem of the lower achieving children who won't do any better for it anyway.”

Again NOT what I said, and what is reprehensible is that you think “less able children” as you call them deserve to be in the vile, unpleasant environment you describe. That just because you can’t perform to whatever standard on a verbal and non-verbal reasoning test aged 11, that should be placed to a school with inconsistent teaching and uncontrolled poor behaviour. How unbelievably cruel and individualist.

I believe all children deserve a positive and safe environment to learn in, where their abilities and strengths are appreciated and they receive the input they need, not lovely grammars for some and crappy situations for everyone else.