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 find it interesting that mumsnet is so big on equality in other areas but so small on equality on education. It smacks of humbug I have to say, protecting one's own. The forum really does seem to run scared of merit in terms of access to educational opportunity, but I'm not sure quite why it should.

I think that when it comes to educational attainment of 10/11 year olds, success is too closely linked to parental support. It's fine to talk of equality of education when we're talking about older secondary school children who have had enough years at school to have developed their own understanding of the importance of education and can drive themselves to study, but when we are talking about 10yos, success in a test will have as much to do with the education they receive at primary school and the support available at home as it will have to do with their intelligence.

We cannot separate intelligence and support available at such a young age, therefore it cannot be completely meritocratic.

While I can see that it is unfair on children who don't have high quality primary education and strong parental support, I don't think we can create equality of education as long as we don't have equality in parenting.

It would be very wrong to remove something that can be very beneficial to children simply to increase equality of education, because that would basically be penalising children because of the failings of other children's parents. Maybe that's why you find that posters on MN aren't big on equality of education, because they don't want standards for their own children to be lowered because of other parents that don't put in the extra time and effort that they do.

Thanks, Wilfer, my view entirely.

To parents like Taffeta, who think I'm being "hopelessly naive" imagining all parents could do what I or Wilfer or many others on this thread have done, I agree that for parents who themselves are uneducated or not native Brits, it is hard to navigate the system. Hence why I'd like to 'demystify' the system for parents, who would then be able to tutor their own kids.

I came to this view after the dd of one of my best friends, who is a bright girl, failed her 11+. Her parents had employed a tutor and left it - naively, in my view - up to the tutor. The dd was quite capable of passing, but her parents - bright though not highly educated themselves - didn't know how to help her themselves. They thought they were doing the right thing by their dd by paying money they couldn't afford to a tutor. They weren't. Had they been empowered to take control of the process themselves, their dd could and probably would have passed. I feel bad I didn't offer to help more - this was when I was just setting out on tutoring my own dc1 and was not yet confident enough to know that I was on the right path.

I agree that though all the materials are out there in the public domain, not everyone knows where they are or how to access them. But more than that, the insidious message parents get at the school gates is that unless you get a tutor, you are in some way failing your dcs, that a tutor is 'necessary' to pass. This is so very, very far from the truth. The reality is that most tutors are not qualified teachers and NONE are qualified to teach the 11+ - because no such qualification exists.

Believe me, I could have made a fortune doing private tutoring if it did not go absolutely contrary to my beliefs about what grammar schools should be for and the role of tutors. So I don't say this lightly. Without giving away too much personal info, I have the kind of background that could command huge salaries in the field - and I'm not rich. So it is hard to turn down. Principles are a pain, sometimes...

I said I wouldn't post again but I will to say hi to JimJams

About equality, raised on this thread repeatedly:

"We want equality; we also want every child to achieve their full potential. Those two aims are often in tension. All of our fudging between the two is usually where we get muddled up."

You see I don't want or expect equality of outcome, which is where I think this thread gets confused. I think people are all different and even given identical education, they will have different needs, interests and will develop in different directions. I don't think that by 11, our children are all identical empty vessels needing and wanting to be filled identically, and it's ridiculous to imagine they are. I want equality of opportunity. But as WooWooOwl states, lots of the opportunities come from parents - and there is no way to fill those gaps. I'm certainly far from a perfect parent - I look at other parents on here who are doing much better job of parenting than I am and think how lucky their kids are. That's life. Some kids are better at maths, or spacial awareness or are dyslexic or whatever. We can't adjust for eveything, always.

What we should be doing, though, is ensuring that money is not the deciding factor in opportunity.

Hence my opposition to tutors. (And also to comprehensives as a panacea - we all know that comps in posh areas do better = selection by house prices. Give my selection by exam ie meritocracy any time.)

I completely agree that money shouldn't be the deciding factor opportunity, but tbh, I don't believe it is, even with the massive throttling industry that surrounds every grammar school.

As your example shows, it wasn't money or a lack of private tutoring that disadvantaged your friends child, it was a lack of knowledge on her parents part, even though they were engaged parents who obviously wanted to do their best for their child.

Maybe if they had been given better advice through primary school, their daughters result in the 11+ would be different, because as it was, they already did what they knew to be the best thing.

With the amount of free and low cost resources there are out there, it isn't money that stops parents from preparing their children for the 11+ themselves. Its lack of interest, motivation, knowledge, time, and probably confidence that stops them doing it.

I can't see how that can change as long as primary schools fail to support grammar schools.

The more I think about it, the more I get annoyed by the fact that state primary schools don't support entry into all state secondaries. It makes so much difference!

Not sure why auto correct changed 'tutoring' to 'throttling' there!

WooWoo that's a reasonable try except for the fact that the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with 'taking away' educational opportunities from anyone. I'm not in any way an advocate of abolishing grammars indeed I'm a staunch supporter of grammars and would like to see the re-introduction of grammars at least for the top 10%. And across the country, not in random geographical pockets.

The issue raised by OP is that moneyed parents are in effect, whether consciously or not, deterring less well off children from even applying to grammars in the first place, by promoting or perpetuating the myth that paid for tutoring is necessary.

Paid for tutoring is absolutely not necessary although a decent primary education is, though the state should be entirely capable of providing this. If an able but less well off child were to apply and push a well heeled child off the pass list, that might I suppose be seen by the disappointed middle class parents as a 'taking away' of their child's opportunity, but it would be absolutely fair. Less well off child was brighter and more deserving of the place.

To be honest middle class children at the moment are having an easier ride than they should, precisely because of this syndrome. It's good that there's a bit of noise about it now, from various educational bodies, but whether that will be enough to overcome the entrenched position of the self-interested tutoring classes remains to be seen.

I'm all for mixing up the tests a bit to confuse the tutors. I'd also like to see a bit more subjectivity introduced to the test, to allow for the obstacles faced by less well off children and to identify potential more readily. I happen to like the idea of interviews too. Some of the top universities have an excellent blueprint which could be adopted at this lower level, but of course there just isn't the political will. Grammar talk = lost votes, so no-one will do it, they'll simply keep on producing hot air.

Another one who seconds Wilfer.

I agree on interviews too Venturabay but these could also be taught....

Plus interviews would cost the secondaries money in terms of cover for absent SLT

Have you heard of/looked into EPIPS? They are done in our state primary first month of reception, yr2 and end of yr4. It is how they pick the G&T group. Apparently it tests natural intelligence and they use it to track against expected progress. It is all hush hush in school but the HT told me about it as I wasn't planning on entering DD1 for Tiffin and she said I must due to epip score (I'm not).
Anyway sounds like a fairer measure than testing what they've learned it not at primary/tutored for.

Ventura, I am 100% behind what you say in your first paragraph, and I completely agree. But I disagree with a lot if the rest of what you say.

You could be right that some parents (not necessarily moneyed parents) are deterring others from going through the 11+ by perpetuating the myth that paid for tutoring is essential, but I don't think that's something that can be helped. It's up to individual parents to look at the system around them and work out what they can do, I don't think we can put some kind of blame on parents that use tutoring for the fact that others don't opt in to the 11+.

To be honest middle class children at the moment are having an easier ride than they should, precisely because of this syndrome.

This is something I completely disagree with. Firstly, how do you define middle class? We are a family that firmly fits some middle class criteria but not all, and there will be many families like that in one way or another. How do you decide who is at an advantage because of their parents income or education and who isn't? There are too many grey areas to accurately say that middle class children are getting an easier ride.

And even if children are at some advantage because of their parents, I don't see that as a terrible thing. The thing that needs to be changed is that some parents are disadvantaging their children for whatever reason. Anything that changes the levels of equality in the 11+ needs to look at bringing the bottom up, not the top down.

There isn't anything wrong with people being self interested on behalf of their children, even when that involves tutoring. All parents should have that level of interest in their children's education, and I say that as someone who couldn't afford tutoring, had an unsupportive primary, and sent a child in to do the 11+ surrounded by children in expensive blazers and boaters.

I very much disagree with interviews for ten year olds. The pressure of an exam is enough, and there are a lot of very able children that would not come across well at interview because of aspergers, nerves, lack of confidence, the wrong accent or whatever.

The one good thing about tutoring, whether paid for or DIY, is that it shows a commitment to education.

Out of two equally intelligent children, I think the one who has put in the most effort to prepare for an exam is more deserving of a much coveted place at a grammar school instead of child who hasn't put in extra effort.

Educational outcomes are not just about innate ability, it's also about motivation and commitment, therefore allocating limited school places should have some reflection of that.

*Soooo it's alright for the kids from Oustanding primary schools to have an unfair advantage re Sats with extra booster sessions,better teachers,better results etc?It's alright for said kids to cream off the places in the top sets and have extra confidence and a higher starting place on starting secondary?

No system is perfect and the grammar system is here to stay as highlighted by Sutton.You make the best of it,like anything.*

No, I don't think it's right that some kids get a better education than others. But I think the grammar system (and private schools) exacerbate the situation rather than improving it. If you cream off the most able / most supported (often the same thing) children from any school, the ones left behind will lose out as a result.

The ones left behind lose out because of a lack of support from their own parents or their own school, not because of a lack of support from other children who have no responsibility to improve standards for their peers.

stillenacht I think people think Oxbridge interviews can be 'taught' for but plenty of those who have been given weekly classes for an entire year at their expensive schools nevertheless fail to secure a place. And plenty of those who have had no practice whatsoever do manage to secure a place. I'd like to think that seasoned secondary teachers are fully capable of teasing something to evidence potential out of a completely unprepared child, as well as a shy one, or an awkward one. I strongly dispute that the same teachers are likely to be biased against anyone on the grounds of accent, whether posh, unposh, ethnic or just plain irritating. Why would they? I think most grammar school teachers want the best children in, not purely the richest. If there's an element of positive discrimination, then all good.

WooWoo there's a slightly false blame game going on here. Some parents of bright children can't help that they aren't in a position to help. It could be the case for a myriad of reasons, none of which are blameworthy. You also refer to the situation where there are two equally intelligent children. I'm making a case for a system where a brighter but disadvantaged child is able to pip a less bright but more advantaged child for the place. I detect a good deal of middle class protectionism in what you say. It's tremendously mumsnet. And of course middle class kids are getting a relatively easy ride into grammars, because it's undisputably the case, borne out by the stats, that the less well off are currently deterred from applying in droves. They're deterred by the middle class myth that tutoring is necessary to even have a look in, as well as by the refrain that grammars are now the preserve of the middle classes. Unfortunately the latter, precisely because of the former, has been becoming increasingly true. Hence the beginning of a movement by the Sutton Trust and the GSHA and various HTs etc to turn the tide. I for one really hope that the movement gains momentum and works. Then all we need are grammars dotted around the country in places where they currently aren't, with perhaps a fair few extracted from Kent :)

I personally find the Sutton Trust v annoying - lots of hand-wringing about the lack of poorer kids at grammars/disadvantages they face, but without actually making any effort or putting any of their resources/cash into actually changing the situation. Basically, their aim appears to be to remove grammars rather than make access to them fairer - the outcome I would prefer.

I prefer removing the obstacles to removing the grammars.

And Tess - thanks, never heard of EPIPS!

Is your dc at a private school?

Woah venturabay calm down! You seem to be permanently attacking me. Sorry but I have a severely disabled DS and only teach in the system so sod it this time I definitely off.

I think most grammar school teachers want the best children in, not purely the richest.

I agree, but 'best' doesn't necessarily mean most intelligent. Best in my mind would be a child who is supported, is intelligent, and is motivated. Intelligence alone doesn't mean success, and often people with less intelligence than others have better outcomes in life because they work hard and are determined.

Teachers are human and they do take particular likes and dislikes to children because of that. They should of course be professional, but in wouldn't want to trust my children's educational future to someone that might not be.

I don't believe positive discrimination can be a good thing, not when it comes to children. No form of active discrimination is acceptable in education IMO, especially when any disadvantage is mostly created by parents.

You seem convinced that working class families are deterred from grammar schools because of the choices that other families make, and while a few may be, they are still free to make their own choice. I think that it's more likely to be the case that some families with bright children are deterred from grammar schools because they feel they will fit in better at other schools, or they don't see the benefits of grammar school, or they just don't think it will suit their child, or they simply aren't interested enough or motivated enough to do the preparation with their child.

It seems to me 'tremendously mumsnet' to come across as if you believe the middle classes are actively trying to prevent anyone else from achieving academically, and that just isn't the case. Most parents are just trying to do the best they can for their own children with the resources available to them.

As I asked earlier, how do you define middle class? How do you decide which child is more disadvantaged than another? Because if you are going to positively discriminate, you have to be very sure of what defines disadvantage.

stillenacht that was no attack! Please don't be too sensitive, because you're reading it wrong. My post simply expresses the fact that I'm optimistic about the ability of teachers to see through children especially prepared for interview - and I said that conscious that you yourself are an experienced grammar school teacher. I have experience of interviewing in an educational context, and it's not easy for interviewees to pull the wool over experienced eyes.

WooWoo I used the phrase 'consciously or not'. It's the collective effect which matters, not the motive or the cause.

In terms of 'having to be very sure of what defines disadvantage' I think it would be tremendously simple, given the data in any given application. Contextualisation permeates the selection at university level, so why not at the age of 11? There's no significant difference. Indeed positively discriminating at the age of 11 to give a leg up where it's needed would reduce the need to do so at university level. By the time it gets to Y13 far too many less well off students have failed to fulfil their raw potential, and on goes the cycle.

In reply to another poster, the Sutton Trust does actually put its resources in to variety of projects to help access. It funded a successful scheme at Pate's for example. But it doesn't have the funds to set the whole system to rights - that's the government's job.

No, state primary.
She just passed Kingston grammar (independent) 10+ after 6 tutor sessions and practice bond books (yr5 9-10 not advanced)

She was interviewed too and judging by many of her answers she clearly hadn't been tutored/prepped for it!!

I agree the collective effect matters, I'm just not sure the effect of some parents using tutors is as big as any of the other issues that prevent parents using grammar schools.

You've lost me a little bit with your second paragraph, I can't see how it would be at all simple to decide who is disadvantaged or advantaged in the 11+. Could you explain more please?

I've never made an application to university so have no idea of the data given in that kind of application. What questions would have to be asked if this were to be put in place for 11+. Is it only about financial disadvantage? How much importance do we give to parental education versus parental income? What about other factors, the child's health, or that of their parents or siblings or elderly relatives, when all could impact on their primary education?

University applications/offers are made based on two lots of formal exams, surely that makes a significant difference compared to a ten year old who has only ever done end of year tests?

I agree that children have no responsibility to improve standards for their peers, WooWoo. Policymakers, however, do, and should be actively looking for ways to improve the education system to mitigate the disadvantages faced by some children, through no fault of their own.