to think a child should be able to get into a grammar school without tutoring?

[AntonioGramsci]

I am surprised at how many kids get tutored for the entrance exams, surely if they are clever, enough practicing a few papers a few weeks in advance should be sufficient? Did your child get in without being tutored?

Well, some parents will go to great lengths to save on private school fees. We don't have a state grammar school where we live, sadly. I wouldn't have ds tutored though, there's no point getting them through the exam, how are they to manage for the rest of the time there?

I think the tutoring is more about exam techniques isn't it ?

Sorry, just noticed you mentioned practise papers.

I totally agree, I see students go on to grammars who have been coached to within an inch of their lives and I always wonder who they are going to keep up.

If my dd ever expresses a wish to go to the grammar, and I hope she doesn't, I will not be subjecting her to hours of tutoring.

Surely, looking at the papers should be sufficient. A truly clever child will do well.

where the schools are enormously oversubscribed, I think it is understandable. Then everyone gets caught up in it.

Not the way it should be, but it's what we've got.

Well, it's the rub with grammar schools isn't it? Not identifying the top performers, but distinguishing between the children immediately on either side of the cut-off point.

I wasn't tutored but I'm very old. Seems to be the norm these days even with those at private school - no support for 11+ because they either want their pupils to go to the senior school or do common entrance at 13.

I think it is fair enough to do practice papers (I did three at school) but more than that makes no sense. I heard of someone's child passing the 11+ following lots of tutoring despite being middle to lower in her class. To my mind that means her parents will be paying for tutors throughout grammar and she will most likely have a miserable time.

It seems unfair to tutor a child, not every parent can do this for their child because of the cost. It would be really bad for a bight child to miss out on a place because a tutored child has done a little better on the exam because their parents could afford the extra support.

I obviously didn't go to a grammar school as there was not one availiable, if I had then perhapse I would be able to spell 'bright' correctly.

YANBU but it is an arms race.

Having witnessed panic stricken parents with kids in one of the most academic Prep schools desperatley hiring tutors on top of outstanding teaching they received at school I can believe it is common place.

Goodness ABetaDad

I live in an area that has 4 state grammars (2 boys/2 girls) within a 10 mile radius and the tutoring that goes on around here is mental.

We visited one when DD1 was in year 6 and when I asked one of the teachers if I was being naive not have DD tutored I was told that they'd much prefer to have children who are naturally bright and interested rather than the ones who get in after being tutored for years and then can't cope and end up in a remedial class!

To be fair I must say that we also have some really good 'comps' so I wasn't really bothered about her getting into the grammar (she ended up at the comp and is on target for mainly at A* and A for her GCSEs). For some parents though it's more about the kudos of the school rather than the right fit for their child.

It is very similar where we live Tidy.

In times past, state schools prepared children for the papers (albeit briefly). That does not happen anymore.

Competition for places is in excess of 20 children per place in our authority- the truly bright will be ideal for grammar school, but they do not have a chance of getting in without any preparation. It is not enough to be clever- you have to be better than 19 other very clever children.

The problem is as other posters have said, when you have so many children competing for 120 places- children from out of borough. Prep schools do teach verbal/non-verbal reasoning- state schools don't. So a child at state school has to have some form of tutoring be it parental or paid for- to stand a fair chance.
I agree that vr/nonvr is an inate ability- but vhildren need some practice.
I like Abetadad's comment - 2an arms race". How true. It is hell on earth here in Kingston- and yes, you get sucked into it.

I agree

and I don't think it's necessary to get sucked into it

we know a few people who applied to the grammars in kingston last year and got in (with no tutoring) and we know a few families who have tried again this year (and fingers crossed, if that's what they want, they'll get in). There are definitely families who don't get sucked into the whole thing and are successful.

but I guess it would depend entirely on the child (which, after all, is how it was intended I guess)

Its an awful situation though, isn't it? Makes a mockery of the whole grammar system. I am glad we don't live in a grammar area because, as the parent of two very capable state educated primary school children, I would feel obliged to get on that treadmill of private tutoring, for fear of somehow letting my dc down.

Am very glad the choice doesn't exist here.

It is a tricky one, isn't it? It has to be down to the aptitude of the child, I think, and to what extent they need tutoring. I saw girls drop out of my grammar school because they could not keep up having passed the 11+ and I watched others thrive who failed it first time round. If your child has to be tutored intensively to get through you may be setting them up to fail later and that can do more harm than leaving well alone.

But if you can't find a way of measuring the aptitude of a child that can't be improved by practice, then...?

And how can grammar school be for an elite only when as little as one percentage point can discriminate between a child who gets in and one who doesn't? How can ytou say those children ought to be educated in different schools because one is part of an academic 'elite' and one isn't?

State schools should prepare pupils for 11+ if they are in catchment, and also if they are outside but near enough and able enough that they ought to have a chance for a residual place.

In my day every child was taught 11+ exam techniques, I seem to remember practicing VR/NVR a lot - it was fun! Good mental exercise too.

Its the fault of the state schools if bright state-educated primary children can't get getting school places unless the parents can provide tutoring (either paid or doing it themselves).

So, YABU - tutoring shouldn't be necessary because the necessary skills should have been taught.

I think that academic potential is not always the same as having the ability to pass certain exams - and if children have never come across certain types of questions then they may have trouble answering them, which, with the added exam stress, could be problematic.

I took an entrance exam for my senior school (private) and did several practice papers beforehand to familiarise me with the format - I suppose I did have "tutoring" in that my Dad helped me understand the qus I couldn't do myself - but no intensive coaching. I assume that all parents would do the same - but if they don't/can't, then a tutor would be of benefit.

I teach in a GS - i would say 80% are tutored or go to an independent prep school