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?

Venturabay, you clearly feel very passionately about this and hold strong opinions.
As for your hope to 'put all tutors out of business', was this as personally intended as it appears to be or a general assault on all tutors? Do you really feel that tutors offer nothing of benefit or are you, perhaps frustrated because it's a service that you weren't in the position to offer to your children?
As for your assertions to others' rudeness: pots and kettles.

GoodnesssKnows I do feel strongly that the 11+ should return to being much more meritocratic, yes. And of course it was a general assault on the tutoring industry, not on any particular individual - especially one I don't know from Adam!

I would add that some of those taking the test who think they're buying an advantage need to be careful that their target school isn't reverting to questions based purely on the Y5 syllabus, which is happening in certain quarters because of earlier tests. The extra work, especially an entire year of extra work, could cause considerable overload and confusion. Schools do try to be helpful but they are under no legal obligation to reveal the content of the tests.

In answer to your question, I would have been in a position financially with my older DC to provide them with tutoring, I simple didn't deem it necessary and thought it would clog up life as well as potentially ramp up pressure. Since they all passed outright and not on the borderline I was arguably right. The youngest DC also passed in the highest category and she undoubtedly benefited from the help given, but whether the help given countered the very poor quality of schooling is moot. Anyhow, she passed and is flourishing, so it's fine.

Incidentally, I wrote tutors. Not all tutors. There's a need for tutors in some circumstances but for general educational reasons, not purely to attempt to spoon DC through the 11+ to the unfair detriment of others.

A noun, when non-specific and in its pluralised, is used to indicate 'all'. Thanks for clarifying.

Pluralised form

'A noun, when non-specific and in its pluralised, is used to indicate 'all'. '

Surely it's normally taken to indicate a general point. It means 'tutors in general' not 'all tutors'. Subtle but important difference.

Wilfer, life's too short. Have a lovely weekend!

I have had two dc take the 11+ in the last 10 yrs, and another is about to.

Like me, most parents, with dc in the state sector, who use tutors do not think of it as 'buying an advantage'. (Private education, with 11+ practice galore, is more of a contender in that respect). More often than not, they are simply trying to make sure that the gaps left by the state primaries are plugged. Buying a way out of enforced disadvantage, maybe.

In my experience, curriculum-based exams assume familiarity with the entire KS2 syllabus by the end of year 5 - not a hope in hell at my dc's school!

The 11+ takes several different forms, and you could argue that a straight VR/NVR exam is the fairest test of raw I.Q. and, as such, requires less 'tutoring' whether at home or elsewhere. However, I know for a fact that in my area, where there are three papers - VR, English and Maths, and a primary school which ignores the selective system in which it is operating, tutoring of some sort is absolutely necessary.

Yes, I could do practice papers at home, if I had studious, compliant children, who were eager to do extra-curricular work for the love of it and if I knew how to do all of the maths myself. But guess what?.....I don't!

I do think the 11+ is seriously flawed, in particular the curriculum-based exams, which tend to preclude vast numbers of the very children the Grammars were originally designed for, from accessing them. I also think that the 'opt-in' nature of the exam in many (if not all) areas acts as another barrier.

I don't know what the answer is, other than to revert to the original 11+ format with Primary schools, in areas retaining selection, themselves administering an I.Q test to all children for which minimal preparation is necessary.

MrsRuffdiamond, I couldn't agree with you your entire comment more!

I do think that state primaries ought to include VR and NVR skills in opt-in, lunch time/ after school clubs - free of charge. Most teachers are made responsible for one club per week. It's hardly an ask! I'd also suggest that this operated from the beginning of Year 5 (at the latest) as it'll be more diluted support due to its inevitably short delivery.
Pipe dreams, probably.
It is unfair that both those who aren't aware of the extent of the competition entailed in scoring highly and those who can't afford to supplement their child's education/ aren't equipped to do so themselves (confidence, knowledge of resources, etcetera. or children who won't be taught by their parent) are at such a disadvantage. I've met (taught) children at state and private (preparatory and independent) schools. It's absolutely clear to me that many state schooled pupils are failed by their teachers. This angers me more than anything. To be able to teach a child more advanced concepts within a short period of time and see how they relish and absorb it with ease shocks me when I see how little they've been stretched and the sad shortfall between where they're 'at' and where they need to 'be' - particularly those whose parents realise the need for additional help far too late (one term before the exam).
Let it not be assumed that pupils at privates schools (prep. and indies.) don't need additional support to make it through (IF they're able enough) my own DH used to be staggered by the fact that so many privately educated pupils are also tutored. The way is we it, it's about competition. Yes, it is a sad 'situation'. I can, however, understand why, in this atmosphere of competition, one wouldn't want to lose the 'edge', having invested so much in their DC's education, by 'failing' to huge them that 'little' but more (often costing a lot more).

Incidentally, most private schools don't prepare their pupils for 11+ state school selective examinations either! Their interest is largely in preparing for private secondaries. Hmmm! Quite an assumption as private secondaries are usually even much more expensive than the private primaries.

What I like least of all is the secretive nature of tutoring. I've even had parents (of tutees) bump into each other in my hallway, as one lesson ends and the other begins. I've actually heard the words: "Oh, I thought you said that you weren't having XXX tutored!" Awkward (and ridiculous)!

Why IS it that the competitive nature of these exams lead parents to be jolly unhelpful and secretive. Yuk!

I am pretty peeved by the negative attitude that people have of tutors. Some of us are well qualified, experienced, insured and passionate about what we do. I have been a teacher and tutor for twenty years. I pay my self-assessment tax. I also buy bucket loads of resources for my pupils. I'm fortunate to have a job that I love and to be busy, thank gd.
Why begrudge a professional who works hard?

Lastly, I'm waiting for the day that ALL tutors are regularly CRB checked and registered with a strict body to ensure that they have are well and appropriately qualified and know what they're doing. Sadly, I dread the day when a terrible story will urge us to enforce such a thing as a result of a tragedy. I've heard of people taking advantage of parents desperate for their DCs to get into particular private schools. One such 'tutor' actually charged an extortionate amount to spend 1.5 hours with 3 year olds. A friend had taken her DD to this particular lady. I was horrified to hear how much she was charging and how long she was expecting to be of 'usefulness' to her little one. I called to 'enquire'. Apart from trying to nail me as a client, she td me (when I asked) that her teaching qualifications confided of a correspondence course diploma. With respect to those who have this sort of qualification, the 'art' of teaching isn't learned through the written word. It's through teaching and, more importantly, being observed.
Rant over.
I've not spell-checked, so please excuse any errors.

Totally agree Goodness.

There is only one thing I don't and that is re private schools not teaching to the 11+, some do,a lot.We've got a couple of prep schools in our area who boast their 11+ success even on their website and are picked because of it?

Also the friends I have with kids in private schools are always telling me how their schools claim to be teaching a year ahead.As the 11+ focuses on maths and English a year ahead of when it is studied in the state sector clearly this is an advantage(alongside classes of 15, hours of prep,resources etc).

I think at the very minimum name of primary school should be entered on application forms and yy to registering to tutors.If they had a license number like an Ofsted number parents could check.Also it would good if said tutors had to register the names of their tutees so at the end of the day grammar schools could see just who had the benefit of a private education and/or professional tutor.Some tutors are very good.

Sorry Ipad putting in random question marks.

GoodnesssKnows you as one of the more reputable sounding tutors will be aware of the changes proposed and in some areas adopted. Some posters here appear to be operating in a political and educational vacuum. What do you personally think of the idea of basing maths reasoning questions purely on the syllabus of Y5? Obviously you have a vested interest in this; are you a supporter of the moves to make tutoring for the exam redundant? You clearly believe that the tutoring you supply secures an advantage so do you believe that grammars should be the preserve of those who can pay? I'm glad you pointed out that some tutors are rogues and haven't a clue. It's undoubtedly true that some tutors are rubbish but for as long as they can feed off ill-informed parental insecurity even those rubbish tutors appear to be able to clean up. Out of interest, has any DC you've tutored over the years ever failed to secure a place GoodnessKnows? Do you test a child for general potential before you take him on? I'm interested in the self imposed ethics of 11+ tutoring, as well of course in seeing tests and procedures introduced which will cause it to wither away. These are questions whose answers I'm genuinely interested in as you operate in a part of London about which I know rather less.

MrsRuff a lot has changed in the 11+ tutoring industry and also in admissions over the past 10 years. I'm afraid buying a way out of enforced disadvantage is pure semantics for as long as there are parents at similar schools with equally clever or cleverer whose parents can't buy the same, although of course I get the point that not all schools are equal and that that should be taken into account.

The name of the primary is entered on application forms but the Admissions Code rules currently prevent its quality being put into the mix. Also, didn't the majority of posters further up complain vehemently about contextualization?

equally clever or cleverer DC...

The favoured tutor around here (who does pre-test her students Ventura to protect her pass rate) seems to mainly go over past questions & hand out sheets of practice questions to do during the week.

As that's pretty much what our tutoring consisted of - just I handed out the questions & marked them using the mark scheme - I'm not entirely sure she's value for money. The idea of ds2 being compliant is laughable - and even if I had used her I'd still have had to make him do the practice questions she sat.

No problems with people paying tutors / but parents shouldn't be put off by assuming primary school maths & English is too difficult for them. There's no black magic way to get through the 11 plus - it's just a case of practicing the questions.

I'd honestly love to respond to your questions fully but am currently on a ridiculous number of painkillers (recent op.) so my short term memory is shockingly poor. I'll try to remember and address what I can recall in one go:
If schools attended were to be marked down at the stage of application, it'd be a shame not to also mark down number of hours of tuition - impossible to monitor. Some pupils' parents ask to have lessons twice a week for the last stretch of the 'race' to win a place. This is only worthwhile for extremely as pupils who are able absorb and retain new concepts readily.
I never, ever have pupils sit to do a practice paper in front of me. What a terrible fraudulent way of operating this would be (not that anyone has suggested that I do). Watch out for such 'bad practice'. This can and needs to be done at home, sat at the table in a positive manner (no stern faces and shouting - although this is a sad inevitability at some point for almost all pupils as the pressure mounts and 'novelty' wears towards the last hurdle ).
I never, ever 'assess' pupils. I am often asked to do so. I know that many tutors do. I laugh. Give me two pupils. One may have been privately schooled (not all private schools are the same, so let's assume that we are talking about a 'hot houses' one). Let's call her X. X is of middling ability/ intelligence. How do I know? Because when I teach her a new concept, it takes her time to get her head around it - perhaps two lessons, a further one and questions based on what we have covered as homework. (I'm very non-judgey about whether homework set is done as weeks vary according to school expectations, calendars, family birthdays and illnesses). She is, however, further ahead as her school probably has worked 'a year ahead'. However, not all private schools have an academic focus/ strength. Most do not focus their preparation on state school selective examinations in the area that I live in. They may test pupils annually to gauge potential and track progress in a general way. However, this doesn't cut it in terms of preparation. This is not to say that certain prep. schools in other areas don't prepare for them. All credit to them of they do!
Pupil Y is state schooled. Super bright. Absorbs new concepts by the bucket load and is try able to retain them and utilise them independently within one lesson, despite not having been introduced even to the basics yet (by school).
X and Y may perform equally well. However, I won't be able to tell a parent how quickly their child learns (vs what they currently know) after one session. As you can see, the bracketed latter IS more relevant. Privately schooled (hot housed) children, unless educationally self-motivated - which is less common, are often rather reluctant. As are middling ability state schoolers who are pushed into getting results when they're just not particularly interested or able. This isn't meant to offend. I do hope that it doesn't. I'm sharing my experience.

How often have I heard parents ask or tell me of other tutors' success rates? Often enough. Thing is, how many children made up the 100% success rate? Hmmmm. Is it moral only to accept those who at first meeting would help the TUTOR to keep up his/ her reputation as a guarantor of success. What a load of tosh!
I tutor different pupils for different reasons. In addition to dyslexic pupils (I'm a dyslexia assessor), I also enjoy tutoring those who've lost confidence in a particular subject (usually maths, English, or both). Loss of confidence leads to lowered self-esteem and decreased motivation, 'switching off' widening gap between his/her ability in comparison with their peers. Sadly, pupils do 'feel' this and it leads to even greater loss of confidence, etc. Positive intervention at this stage would be fantastic. This support does not need to be provided by a tutor.

I totally agree that parents should not assume that primary level work will be beyond them. If they worry that they'll confuse their child/ don't know the methods being taught in school (e.g. the grid method of multiplication - don't get me started on that one!), they really should make an appointment with their child's teacher to clarify methods, etc. a good teacher should be only too happy to guide.

My DCs haven't had their breakfast (today is 'p' day: pyjamas, play, Peppa Pig and a friend's party later). No Sunday school or swimming lessons. Yay!

Gosh, turned into a bit of a bunfight while I was away .

saintlyjimjams - are you me? I appear to agree with every single thing you've posted on this thread. How refreshing.

GoodnessKnows - I'm not against paid tutoring per se and think tutoring can offer vital support to children in certain circumstances. Nor am I suggesting all tutors are pants - you sound ethical and experienced (though it would be far from true to say all tutors are like you in either respect).

BUT the whole point of the thread is that I don't think a decent state education should be decided by the whims of the market - I don't approve of that any more than I think the rich should get priority in NHS hospitals etc.

If the rich want to pay for their own schools, hospitals etc, that's one thing (I'm not thrilled at that, either, tbh, as I think it perpetuates privilege and leads to a two-tier system, but that's material for another thread).

But taxpayer-funded grammar schools, intended to educate those most suitable on the basis of their ability should select pupils on those grounds only - bright but poor kids they should not be leapfrogged by less bright children of rich parents - any more than if those parents paid a huge cash bribe to the headteacher (which I assume most people would agree was clearly unjust).

To create a more level playing field, assuming you still believe selective schools serve a purpose at all (if you don't, then this thread is irrelevant to you) then you need to either create genuinely untutorable-for exams, which schools don't seem to be bothered to do, create more grammar schools - which govts don't seem willing to do, or allow all pupils the opportunity to access low-cost or free support to create a level playing field. Hence my thread.

minifingers - just to say - my first choice for my dc would have been a comp but dc wanted a grammar, so I supported that choice. I certainly never gave the impression that if dc failed it would be some kind of permanent mark of failure; on the contrary, I stressed that it was all very much down to the luck of the day. I thought dc had failed and was pefectly happy. If your parents made you feel a failure for not passing that is incredibly sad - but they were wrong - you aren't in any way.Grammar schools really aren't the be all and end all; they're just another type of school that suit some children who prefer a more academic focus but not others. Children can and do have very successful lives from a wide range of schools - grammar schools are just part of a bigger mix.

Trying - I think most parents would do their UTMOST not to make a child feel like a failure for failing the 11+, but that doesn't mean some children won't carry life long feelings of inadequacy about it.

I have failed very few tests that I have tried hard for and prepared properly for (other than my driving test!). In fact I only remember one, which was an elocution exam when I was in year 8. Despite my parents not caring one jot about me failing, I was devastated, and dropped drama classes straight away. I still remember that horrible feeling of having tried really hard for something and done my best, and it not being good enough.

I appreciate that for people who have the back up of a fantastic comprehensive it may be no big deal not passing the 11+, but for many others it will be really, really bad news (if they feel the alternative isn't appropriate or adequate). I think that's sad to rest on the shoulders of a 10 year old who has worked very hard and who may have had a strong image of themselves as a strongly academic child.

Is the risk you might fail a reason not to go in for something though? Ds2 went to a highly competitive audition yesterday - I doubt he'll get it. He came out and said 'well I don't think I'll be selected but that was fun'. And I suspect he'll audition again next year. Being able to fail is a good life skill to have IMO.

Twins, trying :)

I agree, I saw my nieces at the weekend and asked because of this thread, their very recent experiences, one sat the exam last year, didn't do brilliantly and when I asked her about it she couldn't even remember if she sat it or not, the other did well and was again quite blasé about the whole thing.

We all sat in my family, some did well, 2 members of my family didn't, it was an opportunity and if people don't sit for fear of failure alone then that is potentially an opportunity missed, life is full of tests and ratings. Schools are constantly looking at levels etc.

The kids mentioned in this thread who have the weight of the world on their shoulders and are devastated at bad (or potentially bad) results, I am afraid I completely blame the parents for putting so much pressure on them. Many parents do not do this and the kids will not feel the pressure as a result.

Completely agree saintly and AmIIndecisive. Fear of failure is a very weak reason not to apply and of course it's the parent's fault if a child carries a burden. It's perfectly easy to manage expectations if you're reasonable; the 11+ doesn't haven't to be made into some huge mystical thing to the child.

And let us not forget that resilience is a big buzzword these days. We shouldn't wrap kids in cotton wool. Provided we don't give them the message that failure is a devastation, but rather something that happens to everyone sometimes then they can recover and move on. Nothing ventured nothing gained; we shouldn't be encouraging poor kids not to venture just in case they don't gain.

There are people on this thread who feel very strongly that access to a grammar school education can and does have a very big impact on a child's experience of secondary school and of their chances of achieving at a very high level.

I live in an area where there are a few very oversubscribed church and grammar school, some outstanding private schools, and some pretty grim and rough comprehensives with only tiny numbers of high achieving children in them. Parents with bright and academic children in my area go to very great lengths to get their child into a selective school, particularly a grammar school, if church and private are not feasible.

If an adult feels like a grammar place could result in a much happier, more interesting and more successful secondary school experience, why on earth is a child inevitably going to assume it doesn't make much difference and therefore not care if they get in or not?

I can only assume that those people who don't think it's a big deal have the alternative of a good comprehensive or private school place for their child. Or maybe their children think whatever their parent wants them to think. My children aren't so pliable unfortunately, or as predictable.

When we all sat, I know now my mum was desperate for some of her brood not to go to the local comp but we never knew it (it really wasn't very good). She was positive about the possibility of Grammars etc as a potential positive outcome but was never disparaging about the local comp, so it never seemed like an the awful option it was, just one of 2 options.

Also, the members of my family who went had a great time, the school itself was awful, days on end with no teaching staff, and one of 2 did extremely well with her further education, great uni and is a professional, the other left at 16 and wasn't at all academic - it's not the end of the world and I don't think lives are ruined over it.

It may not ruin your life, but it certainly narrows your options in a big way, if the only alternative to the Grammar is a sink school.

It's obviously up to parents to say it would be great but that DC won't be doomed if it doesn't work out, and that competition is tough and more importantly things can go wrong on the day. It's good practice for GCSEs, A Levels, university entrance and all of the more flamboyant stuff that saintly was talking about. Parents can over indulge themselves hugely with the 11+. I've witnessed dozens of parents over the years fling themselves around a kid as it's trying to head off at the school to do the test; completely absurd and all about the parent, not the child. How difficult can it be to lighten things up? It's not about acting, it's about being a relatively level headed parent who doesn't want to make things tougher for their child.