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?

Actually no minifingers that's not what I think. In ds2's case it was one of a set of schools that would have suited him. I wouldn't have been wringing my hands with grief if he was going to the closest school - I liked the head teacher & teaching staff a lot there (incidentally the grammar is his next closest school - he's not undertaking a ridiculous journey to get there). Both schools are about the same size.

In ds3's case there are other schools that I think would suit him - but short of moving house (not possible) he's unlikely to get in as they're so oversubscribed. I'm not so keen on our closest school for him because it's a performing arts specialist & while I could see acting-hopeful ds2 getting loads out of the music/dance & drama groups there ds3 doesn't have a performing arts bone in his body. So yes I'd like him to get in because he's a history nut who wants to do Latin & most schools don't offer that (he's an odd kid) & for that reason I think it's the best school for him - but also because the other schools he can access easily from our house aren't that great for him because they focus on areas that are not his strengths. Nothing rarified about the 'grammar'. If the local school offered Latin & a history club it would be ticking our ds3 list as well. When we looked at schools for ds2 we checked out their drama & performing arts opportunities , when we look for ds3 it's about history class civ. I don't really care whether a school is a comprehensive or grammar - I'm looking for what will fit my child. Ds3 is already excluded from one option that would suit him because we live in the wrong street - at least he gets a chance to get in with the grammar.

Ironically at our school the only kids who stand a chance of getting level 6 s and entry into the special high Sats group at secondary will be those that have tutored for the 11+ or level 6 Sats.

I see no moral superiority in either.

Native wit is innate intelligence, not the ability to crack jokes.

Spark in this context refers to intellectual spark, not a veneer of confidence, arrogance or cheekiness. So, the ability or potential to take intellectual risks, though admittedly that sounds remarkably highfalutin for a 10 yr old.

Actually I thought ds2 should go to the local school (because of the performing arts side - I worried the grammar wouldn't allow time off for performing). He went to the grammar because that's what he chose to put first on the form & he got a place. He was right, no problems keeping up academically, no problems getting performance licenses signed & no problem getting days off for performances.

For ds3 I think the grammar is the best school for him
& I hope he gets a place - I'll do just as much work on it not mattering if he doesn't though.

My eldest is in a special school so I'm not bothered about how academic a school is. The key is it needs to be the tight school for the child. If ds3 wasn't academic I wouldn't even be looking at the grammar.

I'm aware native wit didn't mean ability to crack a joke, but why is someone in that category more deserving of a place than someone academic ( I don't think intelligence necessarily means being academic).

Retro I wholly agree with the fact that the FSM thing will barely make a tiny ripple, if at all, but the grammars have to work within the current Admissions Code, so what they can do at the moment is limited. I'm not sure why you imply the grammars and those associated with them don't really care - offensive. Banning applicants from private primaries would fly in the face of equal access for all and I can't work out why on the one hand you rail against contextualization yet on the other you come up with awarding extra points for those applying from low achieving primaries .

I think we may be getting overly semantic saintly. Although frankly if I had to decide between two DC at the age of 11yrs old, one of whom was more inherently intelligent and the other who was more 'academic', I'd most likely plump for the first.

Those in private primaries can easily switch to a state primary.Every child is entitled to a state place so there is total equality.

I wasn't referring to those associated with grammars as being those that don't care,I was referring to those who like to beat their chests and bewail the lack of equality eg the gov,posters. Extolling a measure that simply pays lip service and looks good in headlines isn't caring or doing anything about it.

"Some posters seem to be happy to scream unfairness with one system whilst happily forgetting the unfairness in another"

"I was referring to those who like to beat their chests and bewail the lack of equality eg the gov,posters."

You know what Retrobear - there's no need to be so dismissive and sneering. The points I've made aren't unreasonable. I don't accept unfairness IN ANY SETTING, and I'd love to see the government focus more on what can be done to improve educational provision for the children who have most to lose in our current system - the children, bright or not so bright, from the most deprived and disengaged families.

Saying that anyone who has concerns about the value of identifying bright children through testing at 11 and separating them from their peers in special schools has no other concerns about the fairness of our system is based on a false and baseless assumption, and is not a reasonable addition to the argument on this thread.

Seriously - stop being a bitch. It's not helpful to the debate.

"For ds3 I think the grammar is the best school for him
& I hope he gets a place - I'll do just as much work on it not mattering if he doesn't though".

I believe very strongly that we almost always know when someone is dissembling. Particularly if we have an acute intelligence and the person who is doing the dissembling is someone we love and are close to. Our children will know if we are profoundly disappointed with their failure to pass an important exam, no matter how bright the smile we plaster to our faces.

"Ironically at our school the only kids who stand a chance of getting level 6 s and entry into the special high Sats group at secondary will be those that have tutored for the 11+ or level 6 Sats.

I see no moral superiority in either"

Who is talking about 'moral superiority'? In children or in parents?

Children in state schools who are bright but may not do brilliantly at 11 because of a failure to engage with the curriculum, immaturity, adverse life events, poor teaching, or poor support at home, can sometimes make amazing progress in secondary if a subject fires them up, if they have an inspirational teacher, or if they are given fantastic pastoral support. The chance to be educated alongside other bright children is still there, because they can (and will be) moved up through the sets, if they improve their performance. This chance is lost forever if the top set is being educated separately in another school.

Wasn't actually aiming that at you.

Sorry I think you under estimate kids.

I have told my DS there are + and - for each school.I have explained that in some ways he isn't in a good position to pass(poor primary,a mother who has no intention of doing hours of tutoring,competing against others from private and Outstanding primaries) however he is blessed with a good brain,he has a good work ethic and us as parents who will support and be proud of him no matter what.

I have always belived you need to be in the barrel to have a chance at anything and a huge dollop of karma,consequently DS thinks in the same way.I have always taught my kids to try their best at everything,to accept crap if you can't change it and to make the best of it.Consequently he has a good head on his shoulders and will be fine whatever the outcome.

Oh and you underestimate the power of a lower starting point.Some bright kids will never catch up with those that started at level 6. They'll miss the work others will cover in the higher groups and will always be running to catch up.

The only parents I can see who wouldn't acknowledge that are those in pound seats with kids in Outstanding primaries who have received level 6 booster sessions and who don't want any bright kid lost to grammars for fear it somehow dilutes their child's education.

It's hypocrisy.

'Those in private primaries can switch to state'. Retropear if one was minded to exclude private primary kids, it would be dead easy to do so simply by requiring details of schooling since Reception on the application form. Some parents think that by switching their kids to a state sixth form after having been at a high achieving indie they can diddle the university entrance process too. It doesn't work; admissions people are smarter than that.

It might be a good idea to recognise that some posters are also 'associated with grammars'.

"Sorry I think you under estimate kids."

So what about the adults out there who carry feelings of failure around with them about failing the 11+? Are you assuming that their feelings of failure are primarily because their parents didn't engage with them in a helpful way about it, or prepare them for the outcome? Personally I'm surprised that you feel such a level of control over your children's thought processes and emotions. My ds is a complex child and I don't feel assured that failure at 11+ wouldn't impact on his sense of himself. Seeing the utter joy, relief and triumph of parents whose children have got a grammar school place I suspect that their feelings of disappointment and sadness if their children hadn't got a place may be just has hard to hide.

"however he is blessed with a good brain,he has a good work ethic and us as parents who will support and be proud of him no matter what".

Would you mind telling me what the advantage might be for him of not getting a grammar school place? Do you have a fantastically good comprehensive that he has an assured place in, if he doesn't get into a grammar? One with a good number of very bright and high achieving pupils so that he doesn't feel too much like a fish out of water and where the pace of learning may be fast enough to keep him interested?

"I have always belived you need to be in the barrel to have a chance at anything and a huge dollop of karma"

Our local grammar has 10 times as many applicants as places. I personally think that luck plays a very tiny part in it, given the level of competition. It's not like entering for a lottery, where everyone has the same chance of success. The majority of the children who enter the 11+ in our area have no chance of success, unless about 500 other stronger applicants are struck down by D&V on the day.

And the state sector is simply full of empty classrooms in year 6.

Why?

here

That was to Ventura

I know my own son thanks.

We have several alternative options thanks and sorry I don't think hoping your kid will pass the 11+(which he will but perhaps not enough to get a place)is any different than hoping they'll get a yea holy level 6. Personally I think you'd need to work harder for the latter.

Anyhow why do you care?He's not your kid and your son is in the afore mentioned pound seats having had level 6 booster sessions as I recall,so you're hardly in any place to lecture.

"and sorry I don't think hoping your kid will pass the 11+(which he will but perhaps not enough to get a place)is any different than hoping they'll get a yea holy level 6."

But that's just silly Retro. Children who pass the 11+ and gain a grammar school place will be schooled in a peer group which consists only of very bright and high-achieving children. In every subject they will share a classroom with 24 or so other very bright children. They will be taught by subject specialists with a high degree of commitment to their subject (including a fair number with Phd's).

If my ds gets level 6's in his SATS and doesn't sit or pass the 11+ he will go to the local comprehensive, where only 30% of the children will have left primary with level 5's in their SATS, and where there will only be a tiny, tiny handful of children who also have level 6's. Not enough to make up a top set. And in any case the school doesn't set for most subjects. Many comprehensives don't. His experience of school will be very, very different - both in and out of the classroom than the one he would have should I get him into a super-selective grammar.

Also, wanted to ask whether you have any older children? I have an older daughter who will most likely leave school next year without enough GCSE's to go onto an A level course. She was in top sets all the way through primary (despite being one of the youngest children in class) and was bright and compliant. On the basis of her SATS grades she should have been on target for 8 to 10 A/A* grades. The reality is that once your kids become adolescents, their peer group often becomes more influential than their family.

Retropear you ask why. Simply because in a previous post you divide those who don't care and those who do care into two distinct categories: 'the gov and posters' v 'those associated with grammars'. Well, apart from not being very nuanced, obviously, occasionally, some people in the latter category will nip into MN Education to see how the other half live. It's not going to be a major source of info or interest but it's a bit of a shame that MN Education gets such a bad press, because there's a good deal of interesting comment. Unfortunately that comment is pretty much negated by the more hysterical and rude defence of the status quo and the protectionist attitudes that some invested posters exhibit.

I think you may not realize quite how rude you sound within what ought to be a reasonable discussion. Mini has already pointed that out. Anyhow, terms such as 'crap' and phrases such as 'harping on' should have no place here tbh.

"so you're hardly in any place to lecture.hmm"

Are you talking to me?

In what way am I not in a place to lecture? The argument I have put forward on this thread is in support of non-selective education as I think it's fairer and better for the majority of children.

The point I'm making is that a) it's impossible to find a fair way to select on the basis of academic ability at 11 b) it's not good for the majority of children, who go to comprehensives, to impose a system of academic and social selection on them which intellectually and socially impoverishes the non-selective sector.

I would be happy for my child to go to a non-selective school if his non-selective school had an intake which was representative of the ability range of children in the community in which we live. Then my son wouldn't feel like a fish out of water at school, and be deprived of the stimulation of being educated alongside other children who are bright and quick-thinking.

Want to add, I am emotionally invested in this argument because I'm agonising about whether to prepare and enter ds1 for the 11+. We live in an area where the grammars are super-selective. All the children I know who've gained entry to these schools have come from private schools, and/or have had YEARS of tutoring - either from paid tutors, or from extremely motivated and bright parents.

My husband is of the view that we should just enter him and 'give it a go'. I know that there is no point even trying unless we put in about 90 minutes a day of work on his maths and English between now and Autumn. He knows how high the stakes are. His cousin has just got in to one of these grammar schools, but only after 3 years in a private primary, plus having had additional tutoring. Ds has been there while his grandmother and aunts have shown jubilation over his cousin's success, and been witness to a lot of 'phew, what would you have done if he hadn't got in' comments (cue worried looks, and 'thank god you don't have to worry about that any more'). He knows that getting into a grammar school is considered a HUGE coup locally, because the local comprehensives are - not terrible - but are very challenging places to work and study (if you want to get some idea - one school which many local children go to is Archbishop Lanfranc, the school built on a landfill site featured in the programme 'Tough Young Teachers').

I'd love to say I'll be delighted and have faith he'll be ok wherever he ends up at school, but being entirely honest, I won't be. I think the existence of so many private schools, over-subscribed church schools, and the popularity of local grammars has destroyed any hope of the comprehensive schools in the area actually being 'comprehensive'. If my son doesn't go to a grammar he won't be going to a 'comprehensive', he'll be going to a secondary modern. And that's not what I would have chosen for him.

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

Well, let's not be too dismissive of that, at least at the beginning of secondary school. Our local comprehensive does very little setting in Y7, and gradually introduces it through Y8 & 9. It's one of the top performing comps in England on both raw attainment and value-add. So it's certainly not impossible to achieve strong results with mixed ability teaching, and it gives sec teachers the opportunity to properly evaluate how their new intake is doing and to gradually tailor their education to suit.

Ds2 has been to and got/not got auditions way more competitive than the 11 plus. Learning to deal with not getting something/learning to have a go - without it destroying your future happiness is surely part of growing up. He's also had some fabulous experiences when he's got something that I thought he was unlikely to get - experiences he wouldn't have had if we were all too worried about failure to give it a go.

The 11 plus is tested like auditions or any exam in this house. You decide whether it's at all realistic, if it great- give it a go & do your best. If it doesn't work out - never mind.