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?

In answer to the OP, my DS was not tutored, but he did do some papers at home.

I always point out that is not going to be the children who are top of the class at primary who get in, or who should get in. Grammars entrance is usually age standardised. An August born child who was not top of their year group in primary school but would be bright when compared to a September born child in the school year below has a good chance of getting in to grammar.

I think on a previous one of these threads someone said a fool and his money are easily parted. I don't believe 11 plus tutoring can make that much difference. It is all a bit of a scam.

I know someone at ds's school who failed the 11+ (no tutoring and no tuition at school) but got a scholarship to the senior school.

We have the worst of all worlds - in catchment for grammar but out of county so there was a positively hostile reception when I asked about 11+ provision at our state primaries. All said that they would have nothing to do with it on the basis that there are perfectly good comprehensives in the borough. 'Good' being a subjective term. For us the grammar school is nearer and easier to get to than our catchment comprehensive.

Had the bizare experience of taking our DSs out of the higly academic Prep schol I mentioned earlier as we wanted to move to another city. When we were leaving another parent came to us and virtually begged us to tell her the name of the tutor we used to get DSs into the new school they were going to. We had not used one - it was just a much less academic school they were going to.

The woman simply would not believe that we had not tutored our children for entrance exams. She said tutors are like gold dust and getting the name of the best ones and getting on their list before other parents is crucial and that is why she wanted to know the name of our tutor so she could sneak into the spare place were creating by leaving. We were gobsmacked.

I agree with MillyR - it is a bit of a scam feeding on parental panic although a rational panic in London and the South East.

"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."

Will undoubtably get massively flamed for saying this but I really only care about my child and their best interests. I'm afraid I don't care about the others - if there's one place available and 20 candidates I will do whatever I can to ensure my child gets it. And I am sure that a lot of other parents feel the same

I did 12+, I did a few practice papers at home but nothing at school. My God it was so easy though I don't think you need much practice TBH.

You can either do it or not I think, what's the point of pushing a child if when they get there you'll be at the bottom of everything?

I think it is important to temper parental ambition with child ability. What you want for your child might not be the best for them - eg grammar school for an academically struggling child.

YANBU. I moved to Bexley during the academic year just before the 11+ - ergo no prep! Naturally I passed, there were no surprised as to who would pass and who would fail. At the GS there were of course the "thick" kids, and these were the ones that passed the exam without prep... imagine being the "thick" kid and you were coached!

Where we live, the grammar schools have catchment areas. If you live within the catchment area, you merely have to pass the 11+ with a certain mark to get in. If you are outside that area, only those with the highest marks get in. So, if you do live without catchment area it may mean that your fairly bright, would-get-in-if-in-catchment-and-therefore-not-less-able-than-others-in-school child will do better after tutoring just to get through the door.

Does that mean the bright out of catchment pupils will only get in if there aren't enough passes in the in catchment category?

I think there is a fear that all children are being tutored from the weakes to the strongest and so to level the playing field one must tutor. My DS has had an IQ test (other issues were being explored) and we were told he has a very high IQ. Teachers have always told us this but it was intersting to have it confirmed. I suspect we will still tutor (probably just ourselves doing it not paying a tutor) though as we think you can improve your chances. It is not for a Grammar but for our local selective state school which we live less that half a mile away from.

I live in the catchment area for a very good grammar school, but I know my dc's will not stand a chance of going there, because there is no way I can afford the £40 plus that parents pay per week in tuition fees from when their children are 9 years old.
At my dc's school, almost every child has at least 2 hours tuition every week for at least a year, to ensure they will get in.
Sadly this means that several children get in, when they really shouldn't, and a lot of bright children from poorer backgrounds simply don't know the process, and don't stand a chance.
As it is, the system in my area is not selecting bright children, they are selecting wealthy parents, and also sadly, having spoken to a couple of teachers at this Grammar school, apparently this is the way they like it - according to them, they have less behavioural problems from children who's parents are willng to go to such lengths to get them into the school.
My dd is bright enough to be considered an 11+ candidate, but without the tutoring, I don't think she'll get in.

What on earth is in the papers these days that is so amenable to tutoring? In my day (when I took it in 1980ish) it was verbal reasoning and it just depended on you being able to think logically and having a large vocabularly - and the latter you could only get from reading a lot, not really through being tutored.

It isn't true to say that children that only just scrape into grammar school with tutoring will have a miserable time. DS1's best friends at prep school were twins. They did not have tutoring, except for their mother doing practice papers with them. One passed and one failed, with one mark between them, so we know that the one that got in had the lowest pass mark out. On appeal they both got places, so they were the weakest scoring children to be there. They have done really well, not exceptional results but both off to a decent university this year with reasonable A levels. They had all the advantages of being at a good school with committed teachers and no behaviour issues. Once you get there a grammar school will nurture all the pupils, not just the brightest.

I think it basically trains the child how to think logically - some children get it, some don't.
I've looked at a practise paper, and found the NVR very easy - it seems that that's the way my brain works, but my sister couldn't do even one question. Her son also couldn't answer them, but after near on 2 years of tuition, he'd been taught how to do it.
In his tuition, he also had loads of vocab taught, as the sort of books he reads wouldn't get him up to Grammar school standard in a million years.

because nobody thinks their child is that child - they all think their child ought to pass anyway but will have the coaching just to make sure?

boring old thread
we have had htis once a week for the last 10 years

what does " tutoring" mean in in the op?
for us it measn DOING PRACTICE papers

BUT BUT BUT

SOME FO THE 11PLUS IS noT ON TEH PRIMARY SCHOOL MATHS CURRICULUM SO YOU HAEV TO LEARN IT BEFORE TO HAEVA HOPE IN HELL

shit this topic irks me

oh very drole user name Antonio

veryconfusedandupset - isn't the point that the twins were not tutored within an inch of their life - so they were actually better prepared to cope with grammar school.

I didn't live in a grammar school catchment, but I did scrape into a university that had pretty strict entrance requirements (in fact I didn't meet the requirements but, in those days, they could apply discretion and did so for students from schools that would/could not have tutored their pupils). I started out expecting to be bottom of the class, but actually coped better with organising my workload and motivating myself.

when i went form private to state grammar they allwoed me in " as she is obviosuly gramar school material"
just liek that!
imagine if that happened now!

I don't think children who are privately educated at primary school should be entitled to sit the grammar exam...totally defeats the object of the grammar system and is a very sly cost cutting exercise by the middle classes....private secondary education is a lot more expensive than primary.

"boring old thread
we have had htis once a week for the last 10 years

what does " tutoring" mean in in the op?
for us it measn DOING PRACTICE papers

BUT BUT BUT

SOME FO THE 11PLUS IS noT ON TEH PRIMARY SCHOOL MATHS CURRICULUM SO YOU HAEV TO LEARN IT BEFORE TO HAEVA HOPE IN HELL

shit this topic irks me"

I've been lurking for a few months, and have never seen this topic before.

Maybe the title of this thread could have acted as a bit of a hint that you should have avoided reading it?

Your spelling has slightly irked me - but not enough for me to complain