11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

"but for tests where past papers are available I don't see what a tutor can do that you can't do"

The are many parents who for reasons of time, education or confidence can't.

There are others who for reasons of motivation or caring won't.

Why should those children miss out?

Sorry it was me who mentioned Eton. I'd always been told that you couldn't tutor for the Eton pre-test (which is taken in year 6). That is a computerised test. I have a meeting this week at ds's school to discuss senior school options so I shall ask if they tutor for the pre-test.

Iirc Winchester also has a computerised pre-test in year 6. Of course with both Eton and Winchester the prospective pupils are also interviewed as part of the selection process so the computerised test is only part of that.

As I mentioned earlier I think you will always have competition for places with league tables and also Ofsted reports. Neither existed when I took the 11+ and that meant no tutoring too.

I'd add that I wouldn't want to tutor ds at all so if he needed tutoring I'd have to pay but not being in the parenting loop I would have struggled to find a tutor even if I could afford it.

seeker - why do you persist in posting opinions that have been debunked by your personal experience with your DS?

I'm guessing that there are a number of DCs who did pass the 11+ despite not being MC.

Some preps I know have computer based familiarisation/practice along the lines of Eton test from about Y4.

I still think he was at a disadvantage because he wasn't tutored. Yes, I did past papers at home with him, lots of them, but I only started at the Easter because I didn't know they had changed the dates to be a Month earlier in Essex until after Easter, so I had to accelerate the schedule I had written, which inevitably meant that some things got missed, especially in English.

With a tutor, they would have covered the bits that I missed.

To be fair, you would have covered the bits you missed too, if they hadn't changed the dates. My point is that yes of course loads of people can "tutor" their children effectively themselves, but many others can't or won't. And if you see going to a grammar school as a great benefit, why should that benefit only be available to children with parents who can and will. Particularly considering that those children probably have loads of other advantages compared to the children of those that can't or won't.

Couthy - that is like saying that I was disadvantaged because I didn't have an au pair. Consequently I had to spend time.cooking and cleaning instead of tutoring my kids.

I don't have an au pair, I work full time and have a long commute with no possibility of working from home (asked last week and I thought my HoD was going to have a heart attack ). Ds wouldn't stand a chance. I could get him to a tutor at a weekend but am rarely home in time to supervise homework (which is why he does it at school). I'm pleased we have escaped all that.

But why should children of parents who are prepared to pay for a prep or a tutor to help with the 11+ not be equally entitled to a place?

The days of GSs being aimed as some kind of ladder out of poverty have long, long gone.

I imagine only a very, very few children are tutored to the extent that they seriously overperform at the test and then can't keep up and with the super-selectives I can't believe there are any.

There is such a shortage of decent school places that there is huge competition for them all. Who is to say that the child of MC parents who can't afford indy secondary but can afford to tutor is less entitled to a place than the poorer child whose parent's can't/won't help?

For what it's worth, tutoring and prepping isn't new. I went to a super-selective GS nearly 30 years ago and my parents spent money on 4 years at a prep school to ensure that my siblings and I all got places as they couldn't afford indies for 4 kids and the local comps were dire.

My DH was also tutored for his super-selective Indy as was his brother and most of his classmates.

Surely the answer is to open more grammar schools or ensure that EVERY comprehensive in the country has proper streaming and allows bright DC to really excell.

Pyrrah, you don't mean streaming. You mean setting, I'm sure.

Setting means that a child is in the right group for them for every subject - so a child who is great at maths but weaker in e.g. MFL or PE will be in different groups for those subects. Streaming, on the other hand, is a crude and usually rather inflexible grouping based on 'overall ability', whatever that might be, so a child who absolutely excels in some areas but is weak in others will be in the wrong class for all of their subects.

(Giggles at the thought of tutoring and prepping 30 years ago - my parents simply took me - straight from our local not-very-good rural primary - to the scholarship exam day for a highly selective girls' private school. I had never taken any test more formal than the weekly self-marked times table quiz before.

Came out with a scholarship that covered full fees, and skipped a year because it was seen as 'not worthwhile' for me to do year 7.... neither of which happened to any of the more conventioanlly-prepped private primary school girls who were also there that day)

Yes, setting, sorry.

I think it depends on the area... I was in a county with very poor secondary state options, lots of v expensive private options and sitting for one of 18 boarding places at a very selective state grammar (of the other 17 who got places in my year, only one didn't come from a private prep).

We were also sitting CE rather than the 11+ so, in those days, 3 papers in Maths, 2 in English, Hist, Geog, 2 Latin papers, RE, French etc. No child from a state primary could have begun to sit those exams.

The days of GSs being aimed as some kind of ladder out of poverty have long, long gone.

This is the whole problem-it has been seized by people who want the equivalent of private education for free. Those in poverty should have an equal chance-or it should at least be weighted in their favour to offset the advantage of money.

"The days of GSs being aimed as some kind of ladder out of poverty have long, long gone."

So they now have no raison d'être, and there is no reason to keep them. Good. Abolish them now!

Why are some people who are against selective education like to boast about the university they went to.

I mean, it's - hey I went to this ordinary comp and look, I got into a RG uni/Oxbridge.

On the one hand it's selective secondary education sucks. On the other hand, look at how clever I am. I went to a very selective university.

But who can afford private education anymore? It is way beyond the reach of those who in the past sent their children to private schools as a matter of course - your average doctor or vicar isn't. And who doesn't want to give their child the best chances in life they can?

It's not just a case of 'private school for free' - selective grammars also offer a chance to those priced out of the good comp catchments.

Why is a child on FSM more deserving of a place than a child whose parents just can't stretch to school fees?

I totally understand the point that the playing field isn't level and that it would be better if it was, but I don't agree with comments that I have seen on threads on MN that seem to suggest that grammar schools are only for a certain socio-economic cohort and that MC children are basically stealing places.

I once did market research for a guy who was setting up a tutoring business in Belfast - where the GS system is still alive and kicking. I stood in a shopping centre in one of the worst parts of West Belfast in the early 1990's and quizzed parents on whether they would a) pay for tutoring for their children and b) how much would they pay.

I was amazed at the response - around 95% of those I asked were interested (most enough to ask for a flyer) and the price they were willing to pay an hour was more than my friend was planning to charge.

Perhaps all state primary schools should be encouraged to have after-school clubs for 11+ prep (as some already do).

Perhaps there is a gap in the market for a cheap tutoring system - online distance, group etc. There must be plenty of teachers who have a philosphical desire to narrow the gap and who would be happy to tutor for a much reduced fee - in the same way that many people give up their time for free to mentor teenagers.

Pyrrah- why do you think grammar schools are a good idea?

I don't understand why people boast about how well they did to get into a good uni from a poor school. I wonder how many of those would send their children through the same education? I want better for my children than I had myself and my education has enabled that. I did well in spite of my education rather than because of it. It has been eye opening to discover that I would have walked any scholarship exam whether music or academic. I didn't because my parents knew nothing about private selective education.

seeker GS were good for people like me. Their worth has become diminished as private school fees have risen exponentially and those who would have chosen private school look for cheaper alternatives. The people like my parents are stuck not being able to afford tutors and sending their dcs to failing schools. I am all for selective education but not how it has become compared to when I applied nearly 40 years ago.

seeker - your DD is in a grammar. You made it clear that you aren't happy for your DS to be at the Sec Mod. So, why are you asking Pyrrah to justify why GSs are a good thing Why not simply have the conversation with yourself?

Musu- why are you all for selective education? What's good about it?

Seeker - I personally believe in selective education.

Just as girls tend to do better when taught in single-sex schools, I think all children do better when taught within a similar ability group.

The issue in the past has always been that more time, effort, money and other resources were invested in the grammars than in the SMs which was very wrong.

In very good comprehensives they manage to achieve the teaching by ability groups, but this is far from the norm.

It allows the very able to work at a faster pace and on the whole disruptive elements are eliminated, it gives average students the chance to shine and also not to be ignored in the way they often can be in a mixed ability class where a teacher is trying to stretch the able while help the struggling. Finally, it means that those at the lowest end who are really struggling can have dedicated help, and perhaps not feel they are failing compared with many of their classmates.

Grammar schools are obviously popular with a lot of parents - judging from the numbers sitting the exams and the tutoring industry so it makes sense to expand to meet some of this demand.

I'm probably also biased since I went to a grammar, and I live in a part of London with dire comprehensives. I imagine in smaller towns that a comprehensive can draw from a wide catchment in terms of socio-economic background and educational ability/attainment.

In my area, the catchment is so small due to population density that there is no wide range at all - and frankly less than 50% getting 5 A-C grades (and no-one getting a spread of A grades) doesn't make me feel it's somewhere I want to send my daughter.

I get the choice of moving house, raising the money for an indy or trying for a grammar school somewhere. Until everyone has the choice of a really good comprehensive option then grammars will be the lone hope for those without the funds to move/pay privately.

Did you know that if you look at the results of a grammar and it's associated secondary modern, they are almost identical to the results of a comprehensive school in a similar catchment? That bright children in a grammar do an almost unmeasurable bit better than they would in a comprehensive, but everyone else does slightly better in a comprehensive than in a secondary modern, and without the social and psychological issues created by segregating children at 10?

Oh, and that comprehensive does not mean mixed ability?