Free tutoring for the 11+ - or how to make the 11+ more meritocratic

[tryingreallytrying]

Thinking aloud...

I successfully tutored my own dc for the 11+ and have been approached many times to tutor other people's children (I'm a teacher, but not at this level, but frankly didn't find it difficult to get on top of requirements for the 11+).

I've always said no to doing any paid tutoring (though I've tutored a friend's child for free) - I know I could make lots of money doing this but strongly believe that grammar schools should not only be open to the children of those who can pay - much like it used to be when I went to grammar school myself.

I'd like to return to that situation - where 11+ exams are NOT tutored for. But in the absence of that, I'd like to ensure that 11+ exams are open to everyone, rich or poor, and that the poor are as well prepared for the exams as the rich.

I'm happy to offer my expertise - but can't afford to spend my time tutoring everyone who might want it for free, personally.

So how to achieve that goal? I've thought of creating materials, websites... Anyone else like to join with me in this? Got any other ideas?

Until state schools push public speaking like private schools do interviews will favour privately educated and confident kids.

venturabay - you seem to have (wilfully?) missed my point when you said:

"I find apportioning blame to parents who haven't the wherewithal to tutor their kids immensely blinkered and rather offensive."

On the contrary, far from "blaming" parents who can't tutor their children, my aim is to help them, enable them to do this - because I think it's far less difficult than it is made out to be. I don't "blame" the parents for thinking this - I blame the media, parents at the school gates and, of course, the tutors themselves, for pushing the idea that self-tutoring is impossible/a waste of time and those without the cash to pay for private schools/tutors might as well give up before they've even applied, because they don't stand a chance.

I therefore criticised the assumption by one parent that because she believes she cannot tutor her child (an assumption not actually based on trying and failing, as far as I know, just on belief in the "mystique" of so-called "professional" tutors), then it follows that no other ordinary parent can tutor their child either. I think that is dangerous and very, very wrong. I think that attitude is not only lazy but perpetuates the current wealth divide.

As you keep harping on about parallels to Oxbridge entrance - what I'd like to do is the equivalent of those who go into state schools and explain to the kids there that that Oxbridge is not out of reach for them just because they're not rich/elite. I have no interest in "blaming" them or their families for these ideas - I'm just interested in helping get past them, and accessing the support they need.

Retropear as I say, I'm vastly middle class and have had my fair share of struggling to pay fuel bills. I think this is protectionism on your part talking because, as I've explained several times, the use of the term middle class is purely as shorthand. I get the impression that you're wilfully ignoring that point, as well as the fact that I completely agree that grammars should be open, and equally, to all comers. The problem is that that is precisely what isn't happening right now and it's that which needs correcting, through whatever means. A entrance process based on merit is what is required, and is what those in charge are attempting to find to correct the imbalance brought about by tutoring. No-one of the required ability should actually have anything to fear, since we all seem to be singing from the same sheet :)

Those in charge aren't tackling it and you continuously keep saying the m/ c are all well heeled and sharp elbowed which quite frankly is as insulting as it is wrong.

trying, I fully understand your original and also all your subsequent posts. That comment was not directed at you one bit. Another poster has very clearly gone in for the blame game and implied that other types of parents are somehow less good. It's not only me who's pointed out that the perceived deficiency of these parents may be no fault of their own.

Ahhhh so the non m/c are all blame free now.

What I'd really, really like to see is the entrance exams becoming far less tutorable-for. I write exams so know this is actually quite easy - it is pure laziness on the part of schools that leads them to reuse exam papers (this is literally the case - the 11+ forum has reams of info on previous questions that have come up and continue to come up again and again in my area, and I'm sure tutors have even more info). There is no excuse for this.

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to get schools to vary their testing methods.

Ventura, in my experience of a grammar school, they really don't need to do anything to increase diversity. There is already significantly more ethnic and religious diversity than there is at the much larger local comp that would have been our alternative. And there is also a fair range of socio economic diversity with children of city bankers and medical consultants mixing with the children of TAs and tradesmen.

However, I suspect there are very few children from deprived council estates that have been brought up on benefits, but I can't see how an interview is going to improve chances for those children anyway.

Interviews are not needed to increase diversity IMO, especially if the Grammar school I use is anything to go by.

I believe that 11+ interviews could be conducted in exactly the same way, at an age appropriate level, and I see no reason why they shouldn't add further context to the tests. I can't really help you further than that.

If you can't answer the question of what context it is that you are looking to add to the test, which it appears you can't, then you are right, you probably can't help me any further than that.

venturabay -

"trying, I fully understand your original and also all your subsequent posts. That comment was not directed at you one bit."

Er - the post of yours I quoted from (Wed 19-Feb-14 12:14:55) began with my username... presumably to address me.

Maybe you should post more carefully?

I think it may be time to ignore this fairly irrelevant quibble about the middle class Retropear and I'm not going to join in the competition for who is the least well off middle class person on the thread.

But what evidence do you have that certain bodies and pressure groups and indeed the schools themselves aren't tackling it? You must have access to information that I don't.

No-one of the required ability should actually have anything to fear, since we all seem to be singing from the same sheet

You are missing the point that plenty of children who are of the required ability already miss out on grammar school places because there aren't enough places to give to all the children that pass the 11+.

Look at any admissions policy online.

Alongside that on a wider scale so far the only idea forthcoming is the allocation of a few fsm places which as I pointed out is a crock.To be frank I think the op has made more valuable suggestions.

Re the m/cs if you don't like it don't keep continuously referring to them particularly in an over generalised and derogatory way.

Agree that class is an irrelevant red herring an annoying diversion on this thread. What stops bright children getting places is not class - it is access to suitable exam preparation in an environment where preparation has become the norm.

I'd like above all else for preparation not to be the norm for any children - because papers are set that cannot be tutored for and because there are sufficient grammar places for all suitable children who want them - but in the absence of that, the next best thing is to empower all parents/schools to help their children.

Grammar schools exist to educate bright, academic children - not to be a free form of private education for rich but mean parents.

Parental wealth should play no part in the allocation of places.

For those who want wealth to play a part, that's what private schools are for.

trying thanks for that. I've read the post you flagged and the last sentence was not directed at you, although I accept that I used your name at the start. Nevertheless the one doesn't flow from the other.

WooWoo I'm not missing any point. The counterpoint to that point would be that that may be the case, because we could do with the re-introduction of more grammars. But the current distribution and the testing process is unfairly weighted against the less well off, it's absolutely undeniable, and that needs putting right.

And I'd like a situation where 10-year-olds (rich and poor) can spend their last few precious childhood months playing, having fun, being kids...not bloody rote-learning synonyms and antonyms and sitting mock exams. Grrr.

Yes Ventura, and I'm not denying that. I'm asking how you think interviews would help put right the issue of the testing process being unfairly weighted against the less well off.

Retropear I absolutely agree that the introduction of those on FSM being given priority in the subscription criteria is, as currently formulated, only going to affect a tiny few. Not all grammars have yet adopted it either. However it is an indication of the way the wind's blowing. Beneath that, and not entirely hidden from view, are the moves to adjust the tests and to increase applications from under-represented groups. Beyond that I for one certainly hope that there will be moves towards contextualization. And who knows what else might be suggested? What I do know is that the whole subject is exercising the minds of those in charge, as reported frequently in the papers, and that's got to be good.

I can't see where I'm derogatory about the middle class and it would be strange if I was, as one of them. But life's too short to do more on a MN thread than use the term as a general term. It'll do, people get the gist, it's really not a big deal - this isn't a thesis.

Anyhow, other stuff beckons.

One last one then: it would be one more factor to throw into the pot, but with a degree of human interaction. I really don't know what you expect me to say. There's such an obvious parallel with university interviews that if you look at the purposes of that model it should suffice to answer your question.

Derogatory means means having a critical or disrespectful attitude.

Repeatedly referring to the m/c as "well heeled and sharp elbowed" in a critical and grabby manner is both disrespectful and critical.

My 10 year old could see that- without tutoring!

"Sorry, that's bollocks. By all means assume you're too crap to tutor. Just don't label all other parents with your 'crap' brush."

OP - Wow. Did you a. Mean to be so rude? And b. Read my post properly? I didn't say I was crap, or other parents who do or don't tutor.

Man, don't start a thread if you can't cope with comments that don't sit on your side of the fence.

This is slightly off at a tangent, but one of the reasons, imo, that more parents do not tutor their own children, is that children are far more willing, in my experience, to do extra-curricular work for a tutor than for a parent.

This probably has more of a bearing than parental ability or availability of materials, on the reluctance of some to tutor their own children.

All those advocating home tutoring must have rather more compliant children than I do!

And of course I have tried to teach my child, he's 10 FFS. I don't see it as "failed" as you so rudely put it, I see it as getting someone in to help who is more effective at it than me.

Anyone would think I had brought the Devil into the house.

Exactly MrsRuff, and that's exactly what the thread is about, not what it's been derailed to.

So - going back to the OPs original question. Perhaps rather than focusing on providing home tuition resources aimed at children, she needs to be producing resources that develop parents' confidence and skills in home tutoring - including how to engage and motivate their children.