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!

Don't worry. I agree. My own children go to a comp as we are unfortunately in a grammar area. They are thriving. I didn't want to tutor them and to be honest, prefer the atmosphere of a comp. They are only teenagers once and want them to learn, but also enjoy it.

Defo exam technique! Is there any technology involved nowadays? I did my 11+ on paper and pencil (yes, pencil, not too much technology!) Certainly you need to practice with the technology if it is involved.

Definitely worthwhile being coached on this type of exam technique especially the "skip if stuck" for questions you have no idea on. The Microsoft exams that I have done are designed for an approach like this and offer different harder questions for really good students. Be careful with the guesses though as tests like the Microsoft exams sometimes penalise obvious guesses.

State primaries do nothing - they are not allowed to. Whilst round here the privates tailor their teaching to the tests.

I am lucky as my mum is a retired teacher so she did weekly sessions with the kids catching them up on areas that were weak following covid. That stopped during the summer holiday when I took over and did some practice papers with them

In my experience, selective schools say they don’t want tutored kids but then year on year offer places to tutored kids.

I know at my DC's grammar the teachers told the students that they are fortunate that for each subject at that school the teachers are trained in that field.

We've moved to my husband's home country and DC is thriving in a school that goes from primary through to high school diploma. DC's a bright kid but I'm very glad to have removed them from the highly competitive state primary in Kent they attended until the end of Year 3. It was full of kids whose ultra-pushy parents had moved down from London specifically to get their DC into grammar school no matter their level of academic ability. Everyone bar no-one had their DC tutored and it made for a horrible atmosphere. Parents booked tutors when their kids were in Yr 1. I was told when DC was in Yr 3 that if I hadn't booked a tutor yet I'd left it too late. Sod that! I took and passed the 11+ myself many moons ago and remember hating being under pressure at such a young age, feeling like my whole future was hanging in the balance. We just did a few practice papers in school and I wasn't aware of anyone being tutored. In the intervening years the whole system has become severely skewed.

OP, your daughter will be fine at any school with the right encouragement. You haven't done anything wrong by not putting her under pressure at such a young age.

Just do the 13+ with some prep and go to a better school

You could have coached her and got her in. Had others not been coached their own children then she might have got in under her own steam - but who knows.

But coaching produces pressure to succeed - is pressurising an 10/11 year old right or sensible?

If she had got in its likely that she would have been in bottom sets and possibly struggled somewhat.

So you made your choice - which I'd support, The advice given was best for her, her mental health and well-being not to mention yours.

Like as not she'll be towards the top of sets in the school she's at in September - succeeding at school is a great confidence booster and rubs off in other areas.

Don't ever let anyone tell her she failed her 11 plus. She didn't, it's just that there were more children ahead of her than there were places. It's a cruel set up.

I think you were naive op.
We are a grammar area. Most have some paid tutoring, some are coached to within an inch of their lives.
At the least parents will familiarise them with the format and do practice tests, there’s books you can buy.
In our area they need to know all yr6 maths by 3rd week of September. Unless someone teaches them the maths they won’t pass no matter how brilliant.
Verbal reasoning is also something they don’t come across in state schools and they get quicker as they practice.
Even exam technique like putting a cross in box, not spending too long on one question, putting an answer for everything needs to be taught to a 10 yr old.
Some state schools get around rules by running lunch club to prep them.
I think it’s cruel to put a 10 year old in a formal exam without seeing the format and having a chance to practice. I was 16 and doing my GCSEs before I sat an exam in a big hall in strict exam conditions, they are only 10.
I know an acquaintance who did just that. I think she was going for bragging rights - our Brian is so bright he wasn’t tutored at all. Poor lad had never even seen an example paper and completely broke down crying in the actual exam and had to be removed and he was horribly embarrassed. They ended up paying for him to go private.

It's ironic that grammar schools were brought in as a social leveler, to ensure that bright children from lower earning families got the education they deserved, at no cost. I was one of those kids in the 1960s.

Now it's completely different. If you don't have parents who can afford tutoring, then that academic environment is all but closed to you.

In my SIL's area, kids are tutored for years, to get admitted to grammar school. Simply having some practice sessions would go nowhere near getting a place. SIL refused to be part of it, but fortunately was able to get my nephew and niece into decent secondary schools where they did very well.

It is a bizarre system. The schools pretend they don’t need tutoring but behind the scenes most kids are being tutored some for several years. It’s all very hush hush.
I understand the primary curriculum focuses on greater depth not jumping to work a year ahead like they did in past.
My mum passed her 11+ but says she and a few children were put up a year and taken for special classes by headmaster in her state primary so tutoring was a thing in 1950s.
I tried to go for a middle balance with my dd but it is hard not to get sucked in. She was always a voracious reader, I can remember printing off a 11+ recommended book list but it was classics she was reading anyway and I’d enjoyed as a child. School just let them pick any books and didn’t steer at all.
She was assessed by a tutor Autumn yr5 and was pass standard in English and VR with no tutoring but needed tutoring to be taught maths. A mathematically inclined parent could have taught it.
Summer hols before we did 12 practice papers from books I bought off Amazon. So 2 a week. I felt this wasn’t too onerous but still helped her get her speed up and work out exam technique. When she got back to school she was shocked as all her friends sitting had done a lot more prep over summer.
She passed and enjoyed the school and did well academically. It’s not true a tutored child will struggle as vast majority are tutored.
I’m a guide leader and can usually predict who is going to pass, being a reader and general vocab are main indicators. I feel sorry for the girls withdrawn from all activities for several tutoring sessions a week when I can tell they aren’t likely to pass.

Yes that is totally wrong. And preventing state primary schools from doing anything that can help

Completely missed the point of grammars doingbthat

My daughter was the only one in her grammar school class who didn't have a tutor. She just did a few practice papers at home to get familiar with the format.
I'm glad she wasn't tutored. My reasoning was that she should get a place based entirely on merit. And there's a good chance a child who needs the head start of tutoring will struggle at a selective school.
Of course, I might have regretted my decision if she hadn't got in...

My child passed the 11+ with 20 points over the passmark. No place at the grammar as it goes on score he just missed out. I dont really agree with tutoring but I 100% wish I had done as to get such a high score with no tutoring (only a couple of weeks familiarisation) means he would easily have got a place with even just a little bit (only 2 marks off). It's not fair but you have to to keep up with everyone else who's taking it.

I think it’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone gets a tutor, everyone has to.

Donkeys years ago I read something about 11+ and tutoring. My memory is a bit hazy but I think it was comparing results in maybe Skipton and Knaresborough. One area tended to tutor and the other didn’t. Overall the numbers passing the 11+ were the same in each group, as you’d expect. It’s about all being in the same boat.

We had a tutor in Y5 for our DC because everyone else had one and we wanted them to be on a level playing field.

The grammar school my son will attend in September had a lower pass score for PPG children and a slightly higher pass score for the others. My son is PPG in that he is considered ‘Ever 6’ - because we had to claim UC for two years after Covid after my husband was made redundant. We don’t claim anymore but apparently he remains entitled to PPG for 6 years after the last claim was made.
I didn’t organise a tutor because I didn’t want to put him under any pressure (and I doubt I could have afforded it) but I did some practice papers with him.
I’m not familiar with other grammar schools but his seemed to have some allowance for the scenario you described.

Look on the bright side. Your child will have a better shot at university entrance if she does well at a state comp (plus "invisible" tutoring) than if she does well at a grammar - so you may have been helping her in the long run.

We did not pay a tutor when our DS sat the 11+. He was successful at 11+ without. We had him sit some practice papers we got online, so he was familiar with VR and non-VR, under timed conditions, so he got used to timing. Seemed to work. I'm not sure professional tutors offer anything magical.

Nail on the head.

Not only have they (at that age) not seen exam papers/questions like it, they're not accustomed to "timed tests" under the same pressure, and they won't have covered the topics tested in the 11+, some of which are done in the final year of primary after the 11+ test has been taken.

So, yes, if your child doesn't do several past papers and hasn't been "taught" the things they've not yet been taught at primary, you're setting them up to fail it.

I'm glad to hear that. And well done to him for getting a place!

Not really ironic. The entire system has changed since the 60s. Grammars are now pretty rare in most areas, so they've become "elite" due to high demand/low supply.

The days are long gone when virtually every town had a grammar, and in those days, yes, they were "social levellers" because there wasn't the same "High" standards to get in. In my town, we had one "sec mod" and one "grammar". The grammar took 40% of the town's kids, whilst the sec mod tool the other 60%. So it was a lot more "normal" for kids to get in without being tutored. In fact, the 11+ test was conducted in the primary school classroom, with no fuss, etc - it just "happened".

When there is high demand, there will be competition and standards will increase. Same with Church schools - they're often over-subscribed, so they have to use some kind of "points" system including church attendance to determine who gets the places.

Op if you are in the Gloucestershire grammars then the rest of the state schools are on par with many non selective areas. So not too bad. Plus even the worst areas here are much much higher in the socio economic scale than inner city areas and so there arnt the same issues. People round here are obsessed with the grammars. Yes - it does help. But a bright supported child will do well anyway and not every bright child will do well in the grammar environment. If you want to try again then you can. But don't make it be everything. It's really not .

My child was a couple of marks off passing the 11 plus. Zero tutoring. It's absolute nonsense. He did just fine.

Don’t feel bad OP. You didn’t put your child under years of pressure from
the age of 8 like many parents on here do. Poor kids. Tutored to within an inch of their life and when they scrape a pass they struggle and languish in the bottom sets of grammar school. What does that do to their confidence?

Bright kids will do well anywhere. And yes those in the top sets at the local comp are very much supported and stretched - it is like they are in a little bubble. Yet without the intense stress and pressure that can come with a grammar school - some children thrive in that environment many, many don’t.

Those in the top sets also get a lot of confidence from being top of the clsss. Getting awards, standing out. That wouldn’t happen at grammar.

You did the right thing I think. For what it’s worth.

No they arnt.
There are many reasons why some kids can excel at passing the 11+ and some don't. It doesn't mean they arnt smart, or clever. Many 'less smart' kids can do things the 'smart' kids can only dream of. Some of the stupidest people I know are 'smart' grammar school kids. Perhaps try not to pigeon hole at age 10.