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?

Stillenacht - really? People give up music lessons to pay for 11 plus - bonkers!

I agree with whoever said they want ten or eleven year olds out playing rather than stuck inside practicing for exams. I would say that is a huge advantage of taking on the eleven plus practice yourself. I loved the 10 minute Bond papers because a) they identified gaps and b) they took ten minutes tops. They could be fitted in around a normal childish life. Yes as the exam came closer ds2 had to practice longer papers but he practices for LAMDA & music exams & shows he's in. I don't see a problem with working towards something providing it doesn't take over everything else.

Wrt Oxford I have long thought the biggest issue is the 'people like us don't go there' attitude. I was lucky - attended a state school with a history of sending people to Oxford but my friend at a different school was told exactly that by her form tutor when she wanted to apply. The same may happen in some 11 plus areas - or it may be that some parents don't want their children to go to a grammar school - there's not much that can be done about that - the schools already run frequent open days & are helpful about admissions - they can't drag people in off the street to sit the 11 plus.

Yes that might be true mrscakes - there are good resources available. OP - pm me if you want a hand....

" But if you're going to continue to propagate the lie that ordinary parents cannot tutor their own kids, then I do care very much. "

OP - Just noticed this gem, as well.

Again, wow. I said that not everyone finds it easy to self tutor. I'm not "propagating lies". Save your vitriol.

Lots jimjams i ask every child every year on first lesson if they have learnt an instrument and in every class at least 5 pupils say this to me

OP - It's as if you are totally determined that everyone self tutor and woe betide anyone who pays for a tutor or has a child that is difficult to tutor or God Forbid! is not very patient or good at teaching their own children.

I'm talking real world here, not some enclave of Oxbridge educated MNers.

Taffeta - yes, I did mean to be so rude, in response to your extremely rude post. Please see above.

Re compliant children - disagree from personal experience. The idea of my dc1 being "compliant" would make me laugh if it didn't make me want to weep - nothing could be further from the truth.

But it does lead on to a valid and useful point - I'm very much against parents forcing their dcs to work v hard for an exam for a school which they are not suited to and do not want to go to. I think parents should work with their children rather than against - ultimately, it's the dc who will have to sit the exam and go to the school. So forcing a child to study who doesn't want to will just lead to a child who then wastes the time/effort/money by deliberately failing the exam anyway. My dc chose the school and wanted to go, so though studying was unpopular, the push to study was ultimately internal rather than forced by me.

And taffeta - I have already stated above that I agree that not every parent can tutor their dcs in practice. And also that those with the money to tutor can do what they like - they don't need extra help and are not the subject of this thread.

The people I'm concerned with are those who can't afford to tutor and currently don't self-tutor, but could, given some help. The fact that yes, some couldn't, even with help, is not an excuse to say that well, just ignore all the others those who could.

At my dcs' primary, I have provided advice and support to parents there who wanted to self-tutor, and shall do so again when my youngest's class is in year 5. (And am pleased to say that I did help a couple of kids from there get places at a grammar; maybe they would have got places anyway, I don't know.)

saintlyjimjams - thanks for the offer. :)

Taffeta I'm not convinced that the thread has been derailed (apart from the outrage at the perceived slight on the middle classes thing), in that the OP wants to see merit determine the outcome of 11+ exams, but her post is based on the premise that tutoring in some form or another is necessary. In my view it isn't, and shouldn't be, but what is necessary is decent primary schooling. It also seems obvious that the real answer lies in reforming the tests, and in adding in contextualization. Also in encouraging those who should apply but don't to do so.

saintly the it's-not-for-people-like-us is an enormous problem for grammars and one that the schools are attempting to tackle. But whereas Oxford has very significant funds to develop access initiatives, grammars are struggling badly. You say there are plenty of open days etc and that parents can't be dragged through the door, but the fact is that the challenge is to persuade those parents to come even as far as the door. The attitudes exhibited by a vocal minority on this thread are a major part of the problem. The fact is those parents don't want more any more competition than there already is and emphatically don't want those at a disadvantage to be put on any sort of level playing field with their own DC. Because obviously it increases the chances that their own DC might then fail. It's self interest pure and simple and is completely at odds with the principle that entrance to grammars should be on merit.

stillenacht mine never had music lessons because of cost, to my lasting regret. But surely if these DC give up because the shortage of money is due to tutoring in Y5, they could pick up again in Y6? We were just generally short at the time, so that wasn't an option.

venturabay -

"the OP wants to see merit determine the outcome of 11+ exams, but her post is based on the premise that tutoring in some form or another is necessary. In my view it isn't, and shouldn't be, but what is necessary is decent primary schooling. It also seems obvious that the real answer lies in reforming the tests, and in adding in contextualization. Also in encouraging those who should apply but don't to do so. "

Actually, I agree with all your points there except contextualisation - contrary to your statement of my views, I also think that tutoring absolutely should not be necessary, primary education should be better, the tests should be re-designed to make tutoring unnecessary and that it is very important to encourage those who would not consider grammars not to rule themselves out.

Where I disagree with you is on interviews and the use of contextual data, which I think are broad brushes that hide the relevant detail; I agree with Retropear that often the working poor who don't qualify for FSM may be as poor or poorer than the FSM pupils. I think it's not possible to allow for all contextual data - what about a dc with a sick parent, or single parent, or illness or bullying? All big issues but impossible to measure or allow for. All that happens is you advantage one group over another. Do you start to disadvantage a pupil because they have an educated parent (even if that parent is busy working and never spends any time with them)? Or disadvantage all pupils who currently go to good state schools versus ones who go to slightly less good schools? Boundaries like this seem entirely arbitrary.

No sadly trying they don't pick it up again and when they get into yr 7 we hear from parents "we want him/her to settle in before they start (in school) music lessons" and of course this rarely happens. Of course a small committed handful continue through 11plus and yr6 to 7 but every year a diminishing handful. It isn't helped by more generous funding ending in year 6.

Sorry trying that message was for ventura

Really Ventura,what absolute rubbish.

So because I've dared to disagree with you(not a minority I might add) I see improvements as a threat.Pmsl.

I'm an ex primary teacher. The particular son I'm considering the 11+ for is G&T,articulate and a very strong all rounder.Believe you me I don't feel threatened I just think your ideas and views are c**p.

We have no intention of stopping Stille,my ds's are too good at the piano and adore it.

Thats fab retropear wish more kept going. I am aware that the 11+ is an excuse for them to give up but more and more it seems to be because of tutoring costs sadly.

I agree about the Ebacc killing your subject stillenacht. Hopefully the Ebacc will die a death fairly soon.

trying multiple strands are capable of being subsumed within the broad concept of contextualization. It's entirely possible to accommodate the disadvantages you mention under a mitigation umbrella, rather than by contextualization per se. Interviews won't happen because of the time factor, they just happen to be on my own pet list. I love interviewing and interviews.

Retropear you may believe my ideas are crap but fortunately for those less privileged than yourself and your son, they're shared by the people driving this stuff. Or rather, I share their views. I'm hopeful that things will change, and before very long. It's worth adding that those who are influential in the 11+ world are all very experienced educationalists who want to secure entrance by merit and if their vision excludes some over tutored kids in favour of less well off kids who happen to have more native wit, spark and potential, then great AFAIAC.

Not quite sure what the relevance is of your being an ex primary school teacher (I've known delightful and fabulous ones in my long career, but also some dreary and execrable ones). Nor of the relevance that you rate your DS very highly (Incidentally, G&T is a con, is it not? Isn't it the top 10% in any given school or something ridiculous like that. But I may well have that wrong - the numbers may have changed, but it did used to be something silly like that, when each of my DC were all feted as G&T, which really was tremendously unspecial).

Should grammar schools be populated by those with 'native wit and spark' or those who are the most academic? Genuine question. What is their purpose? Whichever method of entry is used there will be those who 'should' or 'could' get in who don't. As parents if we put our children in for an academically selective school I believe we have to do our best to ensure they understand that getting in (or not) doesn't actually reflect on them. My constant refrain with ds2 was a) that anyone can have a bad day and b) he'd worked hard so whether or not he passed was neither here nor there. If he got in it would be a great school for him (it is), but we would be equally happy with the second choice school for him (we would have been).

Bit harder to say that like we mean it for ds3 as we don't have an obvious second choice for him, but the same line will be taken.

Incidentally if you use catchment areas there are those who should get in who don't as well. The main problem with school choice in many areas is more applicants than places - true for many comprehensives as well.

Ventura I gave the info to point out that I in no way feel threatened and if I did or wanted to could put my DS through hours of tutoring but I choose not to as I clearly don't need to.Yes G&T is a crock but in theory such kids were what grammar schools were supposedly for in the first place.

I have continuously pointed out that I think there should be ways of making it fairer.Having seen the syllabus I actually think you've got to be pretty bright to get in what ever as you could never do and retain the material from tutoring if not.My dad went to one of the Kent ss and says some of today's material he did at grammar not for the 11+.

So nowhere have I said I don't believe that it should be made fairer but that simply what has currently been suggested by the powers that be is utterly pointless.It is simply paying lip service.

If anybody really cared they could ban private applicants,give extra points if you come from a weaker primary(primary education will have has a far bigger impact longterm on the 11+ and longterm period),ensure 11+ info access for all and more for those in weaker primaries alongside some of the suggestions from the op.

Taking a couple of places from kids just over the threshold who will in all likely hood be those from the poorer primary schools and less well off does nothing.It is just place shuffling.

I personally don't agree with the fsm threshold thing as a device for anything.There is a tiny take up and if I was a parent just over it would induce me to reduce my income for a few years which is hardly beneficial.It is also incredibly unfair.I know parents just over who can't afford school trips,G&T courses etc which fsm kids get free so these kids not only miss out on any stretching at primary but then go on to lose grammar places to kids who have.Not fair.

"What is their purpose? Whichever method of entry is used there will be those who 'should' or 'could' get in who don't."

This is what I keep coming back to, and nobody has an answer to it.

There is evidence that it is and always will be impossible to accurately identify at 11, all children who will benefit from a fast-track academically focused secondary education, and provide a grammar place for all of them.

And if this is the case then we need to make provision in comprehensives for the brightest academic learners, which means having enough outstanding subject specialists and enough bright children to make this type of provision work in a comprehensive setting. The logic following from this is that if we have appropriate provision in the comprehensive system, then why on earth should the state pour money into grammars, which have ALWAYS had an intake which is skewed by class and money. Not only always has done, but is becoming more and more skewed, despite all the tampering with the exam.
failure

"As parents if we put our children in for an academically selective school I believe we have to do our best to ensure they understand that getting in (or not) doesn't actually reflect on them"

But it does reflect on them, and many will carry their failure with them all their lives.

It will say to them: "you're not bright enough/haven't worked hard enough to get into this school, which is where I REALLY want you to go. I would have been ecstatic if you had got a place, and now I'm disappointed, even (or maybe especially) if I think you have done your best". You won't say it out loud, but you WILL think it. And they will know.

want to secure entrance by merit and if their vision excludes some over tutored kids in favour of less well off kids who happen to have more native wit, spark and potential, then great AFAIAC.

No one has a problem with that if the less well off child is actually more intelligent and has more potential than the tutored child. Not sure what wit has to do with it though.

I think the problem comes when you start judging the tutored child as less intelligent than the child who is from a family with a low income based mostly on the choices that the two set of parents have made.

It is possible that the tutored child is more intelligent and does have more potential, and as long as you don't dismiss tutored children as automatically being 'over tutored' and therefore less deserving of a place then it's fine.

But to discriminate against intelligent children in favour of a less intelligent child just because the less intelligent child hasn't had tutoring would be very wrong.

Not if you handle it right.

Also our local comp has sets in year 7 which they use Sats to allocate,the head also told me they have a special group for the highest Sats scorers.Those from the better primaries have an unfair advantage at the start of secondary and to be perfectly frank I see little difference between that and the 11+. At least with our grammar they all get treated the same on entry(I checked).

Ironically for my DS and others from weaker primaries he'll have a better chance of fairness if he gets in to the grammar.

No system is perfect but the buying of the best primary places through property I guess looks better.

The fairest system would be no setting or streaming in secondaries but who would want that?

I don't see how that would be fair though Retro. What's fair about teaching children at a level that is either too high or too low when they could just be taught at the level that is right?

Giving all children a fair education doesn't mean giving all children an identical education. They just need the opportunity to access the same education to make it fair, but as long as no one telling the poor kids or the tutored kids that they aren't allowed in the top sets, then access is fair.

Oh I agree however if the only goals are fairness and equality surely you should go the whole hog.

Some posters seem to be happy to scream unfairness with one system whilst happily forgetting the unfairness in another their children benefit from at the cost of others.

I think no system is fair so you make the best of what you've got.