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?

I can't see how children, who haven't covered all of the areas being tested, can do as well in an exam as children who have. Nor children who have not practised timed papers and exam technique can do as well as those who have all other things being equal.
I pay for a tutor, as well as doing stuff myself, to fill in the gap left by dd going a school who are performing very poorly and which does zero prep for entrance exams and doesn't teach the whole curriculum by sept year 6. Last two years dd has had over 20 supply teachers.

Exactly it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.I'm sure they could scrape a pass but getting a place,you're having a laugh.

To suggest say that a pupil who hasn't covered algebra is going to get the same or more than somebody who has is bonkers.

I don't think many schools teach the curriculum by week 2 of year 6 (when the 11 plus is).

I sit in the middle of 2 good/outstanding ofsted rated primaries (think they're both outstanding). One provides lots of specific 11 plus classes to children who want to sit it, in the other the headteacher disagrees with the 11 plus and no preparation is offered.

Both schools send a large number of children to the grammars.

Yes you have to fill in gaps imo (whether yourself or via a tutor - but point of this thread is you can do it yourself - it's not rocket science) - but I don't think Ofsted ratings of schools tell you anything about 11 plus preparation in those schools. And unless schools are offering specific 11 plus classes there will be gaps.

As I already said there are only about 4 privately educated kids in ds2's year so they're irrelevant.

Oh yes,I think you can do it yourself.If they're able at say maths a How To book would be fine.My DS did some column addition and subtraction following instructions himself today.He did some algebra including Bodmas by following a work book last week.

I recruited my dad to teach ds2 long division because buggered if I could remember how to do it

Actually to go back to the original topic of encouraging people who can't afford tutors one option would be to do the vast majority of practice papers etc yourself but if you have some topics you simply can't cover get in a tutor to teach one or two sessions specifically on those topics.

Or ask your kid's teacher,as a teacher I would have gladly helped with the odd thing(not an entire syllabus) after school or during a playtime for 5/10 minutes.

Yes good idea

I dare not recruit my dad,patience is not his thing going by my o'level traumas.Dp has been pretty good with the maths although he does have a tendency to over complicate things iykwim.

The CPG Practise and Learn books are great.They have clear colourful instructions at the top of each page.The long multiplication,column methods etc are in the general maths one for 10 and 11, there is a book just on algebra.

Retropear the precise format of tests varies between schools as I'm sure you're aware. But the idea, at least when the exam was taken in November, was always that the exam would contain the entire syllabus in order that no child would be at a disadvantage purely on the grounds of what order his school happened to tackle the syllabus. The pass mark required to bag a place even at a superselective was predicated on the basis that children would only be able to answer part of the test, and would only have time to answer 'their' part of the test. So the playing field was level. With the new policy of testing before preference, it's increasingly likely that the tests will consist of reasoning questions based on the Y5 syllabus and by definition all kids will have covered the whole syllabus. So people thinking they can glean an advantage by teaching their child the next academic year of maths ahead of the test will be one big waste of money or time. Which is great.

I have fairly normal kids but each of them -and a lot of their friends- managed not only to pass but also to get a place and also to be keeping up fine. You may think I'm having a laugh but I'm not. They go off to the grammar each morning. Strange but true. It's not actually funny that some kids lose out because of this loopy idea about tutoring which you're propagating further on this thread with no direct experience of your own and clearly with no idea of the way things are moving to eradicate inequality in grammars.

So what's your response to the fact that so many kids actually do manage to get a place at a top superselective from rubbish state primaries without hundreds of hours of prep? Also to saintlyjimjams DS only having 3% or so of private school kids in his year - that's a bit different from the 80% your friend claimed!

Oh yes I use those now - didn't know there was an algebra one - will have a look! Thanks

But there is no pass mark for superselectives. You need to be in the top 120 or so out of around 2000 so need to get as near to 100% as you can to stand a chance hence importance of having covered curriculum.

Sorry you're getting boring.

You don't speak for the entire grammar system.Schools vary as do kids,as does "tutoring".

Kids all bring something different to the party as been pointed out to you time and again.

You are not making sense and continuously contradicting yourself.If there is a completely level playing then there is no need for exam change.Clearly there is a problem and some kids have unfair advantages whether it be primary schools,tutoring or tutoring which isn't called tutoring but actually is.Ways are being looked at to rectify this.Until this happens I for one will be making sure my son has covered what the school has outlined that needs to be covered which they list on their website and which is contained in the past papers they hand out and discuss on their open day.

Personally I think the school involved knows what is needed more than yourself so I for one will be following their advice thanks not yours.I firmly recommend that others get informed as much as they can and don't stick their head in the sand on the advice of one MN poster.

Saintly the mental one is fab too.

No very obviously I don't speak for the entire grammar school system nor do I claim to nor would I ever claim to; that would be ridiculous, which I'm not :)

I'm making complete sense. Tutoring has become a problem for various reasons but the sands are shifting which is good, if boring. I don't believe I've contradicted myself anywhere, let alone continuously. You're most welcome to point out my continuous contradictions if you wish.

It remains true that actually you have no experience whatsoever on which to give advice other than having attended an open day at your grammar of choice. All I'm attempting to do, and I accept it's boring, is to re-iterate that paid for tutoring isn't required, even for kids from dismal schools, provided they're bright. And to assert, with a huge amount of experience as opposed to none, that even in the current unreformed climate a moderate rather than excessive level of practice will do.

Incidentally Retro I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'Kids all bring something different to the party as has been pointed out to you time and again' . If you could explain what that apparently meaningless phrase means, I'd be most grateful :)

And you didn't respond to the 3% private school thing (vs the alleged 80%)........

I suggest you read posts more carefully.Nobody has suggested hours are needed,quite the reverse.We are all saying you can do up yourself.You have said we don't need to do anything.Some of us actually do.

Sorry but you're not an 11+ expert,you have experience of your school not every school.I suspect I know an awful lot more than yourself what the requirements are for ours and Saintly will regarding hers,indeed you seem slightly confused and to not fully understand how things work in her neck of the woods.Like Saintly's the first 150 at ours get places so actually we do need to cover the syllabus as every mark counts which is why I suspect said school publishes the requirements and bends over backwards to be helpful as regards info.

Re your % obsession,schools vary and figures will be collated as a whole.I'm sure some schools take in a damn site more privately educated kids than 3%.Some perhaps take in less.

Oh and I would just like to point out that the 45 minutes tutoring each in maths and English your dc had is an awful lot more input than my DS has.

Kind of confused as to why the tutoring your dc had isn't excessive but deemed as moderate when it's an awful lot more than most kids have.

Seems to be that you think tutoring is ok for your dc but not everybody else.

You're welcome to point out the 45 mins a week that I volunteered that my youngest (but not oldest) DC had, but that was 45 minutes per week help from old friends who are primary school teachers in the absence of any teaching at school at all, since no teaching could be done given the disruption and circumstances of the classroom - context is all. Given how much time most kids get an ordinarily functioning state school I think most would concede that's not much. I did nothing much extra myself - a few practice papers suggested by the school but no more.

I don't like to correct you too much, but I probably would meet the basic criteria of '11+ expert'. You have no idea what I do or don't do professionally, since I haven't said, nor am I likely to any time soon.

It's inconceivable that any grammar takes 80% private, sorry. But you did state it as fact and so your credibility on other aspects of 11+ entry take an instant hit, especially when you choose to defend. It doesn't stack up either mathematically or politically. Saintlyjimjams school may be a bit light in national terms, but no way is yours going to be anything like 80%, not half of that, not even close.

Hmmm well your credibility is obviously lacking as you criticise parents for doing exactly what you have done.You also don't don't seem to understand how the system works as regards cut off points or how important covering all aspects of the curriculum is.

I couldn't give a fig how you assess my credibility. My criticism is reserved exclusively for those who insist, like you, that tutoring on top a decent basic primary education is required to secure a place at a grammar. It isn't. It's middle class protectionism pure and simple by those who fear competition. I couldn't really do what I do if I didn't understand cut off points. I understand the process varies at each school and I'm more familiar with some schools than others, but rest assured I understand the concept of cut off points.

In answer to your rather weak attempts to do me down, 45 minutes a week represents less than 10 minutes a school day for each of English and maths. Given your justification for heavily tutoring your own DC, 10 minutes in the absence of anything amounting to structured schooling is derisible. It's actually quite amazing she passed. I'm not very easily put down :)

.

"Heavily tutoring"my own dc,do you actually read posts or just make things up?I have done very little with my DS and a whole lot less than you did with yours thanks.

You tutored on top of a decent primary place,(I'm sure the less wealthy parents at your dc's school didn't)not me thanks.You used middle class protectionism for your own gains.You have no idea what any other poster has to contend with in their schools but like to justify your own choices whilst berating others for doing far,far less.

The fact is the school we are interested in told us to make sure our dc were up to speed with certain spread of the curriculum they won't cover in school so we will be without heavily tutoring like you did.

In 1982, I was tutored once a week for a year. Tutoring isn't a 'new thing'.
I now tutor children. I recommend, as someone else here also has, elevenplusexams (google them - all one word).

Many of the mathematical concepts included in the papers are not covered in the school curriculum until Year 6. Since the examination (in Hertfordshire) takes place at the very beginning of September, the pupils would have had no exposure to them (eg. ratio, proportion, etc.) unless a parent or tutor had offered additional support.

Similarly, verbal and non-verbal type questions are not on the school's curriculum. Although many schools do offer after-school 11+ booster-type groups for a moderate sum of money, these alone wouldn't necessarily cut it in terms of helping a child achieve sufficiently to gain a place at their grammar school of choice.

With adequate and accurate guidance, a parent is able to 'prepare' their own child for most grammar schools' 11+ examinations. However, this is only really possible when:

1. a parent / relative is relatively confident in what they're doing and determined to keep it up.
2. their child is cooperative and trusting.

Hope this is helpful.

This is the last comment I'll make Retropear, because your comments are getting absurdly inaccurate and even more intemperate. As Mini said, you're simply rude.

I'm not in any competition for wealthiest/ least wealthiest or for heavily tutored/ least tutored. However, as it happens I was certainly the most income poor parent out of DDs cohort for various reasons and none were especially well off. Obviously that doesn't take away my middle class capital, but the latter unfortunately doesn't make me rich. I'm puzzled as to how you can say it was a decent primary in the context of the problems outlined, especially since locally its problems were legendary. But still, have it your own way if it makes you feel better.

Six DC took the 11+ for the local superselective. It's one of the top in the country. DD had 45 minutes help each week for each of English and maths from the elderly retired friends in the absence of anything approximating to regular, reasonably rigorous schooling. Four DC had a professional paid for tutor (the same one as far as I know) and one DC had nothing. Only DD passed outright and the DC with no tutoring was on the 'maybe' list. The four professionally tutored DC failed outright, with no scope for appeal.

I think I've also mentioned that my four older DC all passed outright to the same school, with no 'tutoring' whatsoever. I judged it unnecessary because they did attend a decent primary (sadly closed) though I did give them the four practice tests recommended by the school for each of VR and maths. Beyond that nothing at all.

It's worth saying that the actual tests for many schools are significantly harder than any practice papers available online or in WHSmith, so the fact that a DC regularly scores 90%, as so many do, can serve to confuse when the DC fails to get through.

GoodnessKnows, you outline the obvious problem thrown up/ exacerbated by moving the test forward for testing before preference which is why it's being addressed - and will hopefully put tutors out of business :)