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?

WooWoo I can't see a material difference between the information used by universities to flag applicants, or to award lower offers, and that needed to contextualize 11+ applicants. School type and average results at that school, postcode, parental education, FSM etc. It's very straightforward to secure appropriate data.

Although you say the children entering the test are 'only' 10yrs old, these children are in their seventh year of formal education which is easily enough time to see where they ought to be heading. I also don't see an issue with interviews at that age, since the interviews would by definition be age appropriate and conducted by experienced teachers.

It's good to see that some grammars are changing their entrance criteria as from this year to give preference to children on FSM. The challenge of course will be to get those children to apply, but at least it's a small step in a healthy direction.

To answer your question for myself, I know nothing about grammars except what I have read on mumsnet.

Ds is 4yrs and really clever. At the moment. He wants to be a doctor. Having looked into grammars there are a few he can commute to and one that he can board at (but equally good comps locally too).

But when to start tutoring? I have looked at the 11+ materials in shops and it seems fairly easy enough, not beyond the SATs that I sat at 11 which determined which tier we were placed in at secondary.

Also, what year is a good year to look round the grammars? Yr3? Yr4?

A basic fact sheet woul be ideal for myself with key tutoring points to remember to cover.

I think interviews would be a nightmare. I had one back in the 1980s and clearly headteachers look for naice middle-class kids who aren't going to cause any hassle.

Plus re parental income being considered - you imagine that schools will use that info to positively discriminate towards poor kids. I think it's at least as likely that they will discriminate against them as at my dcs' grammar they are perennially asking for more cash for new building etc and I'm sure that given the choice between a millionaire's child and a poor child they would rather have the rich one!

Spottybra - as long as your ds is keeping on top of maths ie mental arithmatic and times tables (these need to be as rock solid and speedy as possible) and reads loads, then that is all you need to worry about until year 5. By all means do puzzles/games encouraging lateral thinking eg word games, board games, IQ-test-type questions (I used to love these as a child), but no need for any formal tutoring. And chat about books/TV programmes etc if you wish. Share your favourite books/poems etc - a love for literature is infectious.

If there is a maths test in your area, at some point in year 5, do a practice maths test and check he's covered all the maths he needs to and fill in gaps if not. Have a go at VR if doing it - if he's spent years reading, no vocab-learning-by-rote should be required, just a bit of getting used to the types of questions that can be asked. If there's an English paper, years of reading should make English comprehension easy, should have improved vocab and grammar and spelling and stimulated the mind to create interesting creative writing.

If you think he's dyslexic, get it looked at earlier if possible as help can take a while to filter through.

That's largely it. Could explain in more detail but that's the potted version.

OP, to answer your original question of what you could do, perhaps go into state primaries in your area, offer to do a mini workshop where the students do a practice paper a year or 6 months before their 11+, you can identify the gaps in their knowledge and give a mini report for parents / teachers, so they can know what areas to focus on should they wish to.

IME, really bright kids do well with or without help, kids that are tutored have no absolutely guaranteed results and if parents are motivated enough to want to help them then why shouldn't they?

Lastly, FWIW, I think a 10 year old answering "something about trains" for the ACAS question is pretty impressive.

Having had a look at what the Sutton Trust do, they choose to spend their money on providing subsidised places for disadvantaged kids at a private school in Liverpool. Much cheaper, I would have thought, to support 11+ preparation for far more kids so they can access the free education in a choice of grammar schools.

Peter Lampl, the founder of the ST may have helped access at Pate's - but that's because it's his old school. It does nothing for applicants to grammars in my area nor more generally that I'm aware of.

Thanks. Just back from parents evening and he is exceeding in all areas esp science and maths, except writing for which he is at his age group level so just keep playing/talking etc at home and keep him engaged. So proud.

Ventura, I couldn't disagree more with the idea of using postcodes, parental education and FSMs to discriminate for or against children. It would only create more inequality of opportunity as far as I can see, and it would be incredibly unfair on children who have disadvantages unrelated to their parents income.

I thought we were supposed to be trying to make the system more meritocratic, not less!

I can't see what good interviews would do tbh. I'm sure mine helped me when I went through common entrance because I was the sort of child that could present myself well despite not being very academic, but I think interviewing just smacks of trying to find the right children, not the brightest.

OP I don't know which school you interviewed at but it definitely wouldn't be the case that current HTs of grammars would be looking only for 'nice middle class kids'. Perhaps you aren't familiar with many current HTs or haven't read the intermittent articles in the paper by several of them decrying the problems with access but what you suggest is absolutely not how it would go. Is that what you think the top unis are looking for too? Those unis interview but don't do it to seek out 'nice middle class kids'. They do it to identify the kids with most potential, so very much the same idea, albeit at a later stage. At some point I think one has to concede that there are HTs with a vocation; that not all teachers are in the game to put their feet up and coast through their career. Pate's was the chosen school not because it was Peter Lampl's old school but because it was a particularly good school in terms of potential catchment in which to pilot the project. You seem unfairly cynical.

Well WooWoo, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just very glad that the way the wind is blowing is signalled by this new change of policy about priority to those on FSM :) And to repeat myself again: interviewing at Oxford and Cambridge is intended to find the brightest students with the most academic potential (who by definition will be the 'right ones' ), so why not for grammar school entry? Other disadvantage can easily be factored in, to answer your point: there's a system for allowing it at most universities now, nationwide. None of this is difficult, given the political will. Are your DC all at a grammar now btw? (sorry, I may have missed your situation further upthread).

I interviewed at a private school, and I do believe it was about finding teh sort of children they wanted, but I don't expect that to be the same at grammar schools.

You are right, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I do have a child at a grammar, and I'm very pleased he did his 11+ before he would have been discriminated against because I have just about enough money to not qualify for free school meals and because I had a private education until I was 15. He has enough other disadvantages to try and overcome!

Children are not university students.

Many bright kids would bomb at interview.What a ridiculous idea.

The fsm thing discriminates against poorer kids.It just shuffles places along.The most advantaged kids will still get places,it will be a couple of kids just over the fsm threshold who will lose out.

The really bright and able kids, from whatever backgrounds, would shine through at interviews, they would be able to truly see their potential (which you can't always in an exam).

My son is G&T and wouldn't.

He's G&T in areas that don't include interview skills.I know several others the same.

Bright kids don't all come in the same vocal,confident package.

Maybe in a group environment, but in a one on one interview they would be getting to know the child and their potential, not expecting super confidence, any good teacher left one on one with a child should be able to get to know what the child is about.

This also helps whittle out children that have purely been tutored for the exams.

I don't think 10 is too young to interview.

It is not true that really bright and able kids would shine through at interview, even one to one.

Loads of children that are highly able are as academically intelligent as they are at the expense of their emotional intelligence and lack the social skills and the confidence to come across well at interview, especially at ten years old.

On the other side of it, there are children (and adults for that matter) that don't have much ability but they do have the 'gift of the gab' and the ability to deal with interviews well.

I really can't see what five to ten minute interview would reveal about academic potential that can't be revealed from a test. How would it whittle out children that have been tutored? You're talking about an interview, not an oral IQ test.

Even educational psychologists trained to assess academic ability need more than a short interview to do their job properly.

"Whittle out children that have been purely tutored for exams"

What you mean cover holes in maths and literacy not covered at school?

Sooo if they've been lucky enough to go to a school which covers everything,and encourages public speaking(most private schools then)they don't need to be whittled out?

Sorry I taught loads of bright kids who wouldn't have excelled at interview and hoards of average kids who could talk the hind legs off a donkey.One of my dc never speaks to his teachers let alone adults he's never met,it's like getting blood out of a stone.He has just performed in a high achievers piano concert and never smiled,opened his mouth or engaged with anybody who spoke to him.He is shy and quiet.

I guess you could tutor said kid in interview skills though,which kind of defeats the object.

Upthread posters were discussing the fact that so many applicants for Grammar schools were tutored that it put the disadvantaged state school applicants at a disadvantage.

You can't tutor for an interview, and I don't mean a 5 minute interview, I mean a 20 - 30 minute interview AFTER an exam has been sat.

I really believe that a teacher, could get to know a child and assess their potential by spending time talking to them and they should be able to bring a shy child out if their shell.

Retropear it's not so ridiculous that the top independent schools don't interview at the same age, if you'll pardon my pointing it out, so the word ridiculous may not be especially well judged. Unless you know better than SPGS/ Westminster etc. And of course there's an age difference, but the principle of attempting to work out which interviewees have the most academic potential is broadly the same.

The FSM thing is now set in stone, at least for the next 11+ cycle at certain schools, so I'm afraid your view is irrelevant. The numbers it will affect are of course minute, so not worth the sharp elbowed getting het up about. But I would just say that your comment suggests that you think the rank order goes: advantaged kids, neither advantaged nor disadvantaged kids, kids just over the FSM border, FSM kids. Which is interesting...... Is that really how you think it plays out, with such neat stratification?

Lots of crossed posts. I think there are several posters here who are vastly underestimating the competence of experienced interviewing teachers and who completely fail to understand that detecting potential is not about being superficially wooed by the 'gift of the gab'. That doesn't cut the mustard at university level and it wouldn't at 11+ level either. It's not about confidence at all; it goes way beyond that. Interviews are a very valuable tool, but you have to trust the interviewers to make the right call, which I do, and would.

Am I don't and sorry you could tutor.There are public/confidence speaking courses.I've seen them on my son's G&T course list.

Many,many bright people won't interview well.We are all different and if you're shy you're shy.I'm pretty good with kids but sorry 10 minutes is nothing and some kids will need weeks before they open up and show their true potential.

Ventura we're not talking about top public schools which cater for the most richest,confident and privileged kids in the country though are we.

Re the fsm place allocation.If you're saying being on fsm is such a disadvantage it stops kids getting places it stands to reason those just over will be the ones who lose places to these reserved places.There are only so many places and the theory is the lower income you have the less likely you are to get in so it's not rocket science to suggest the next lowest kids will lose places.The rich privately educated kids will still get the same results,they won't be affected at all.

Retropear one of my daughters was very reticent with new people, attended a state school which gave no preparation for university interviews, was clearly made allowances for in the four Oxbridge interviews that she had and has emerged as one of the top of her year, doing a Masters and on her way to a PhD. This process is about identifying potential, not about awarding points for who can talk the most or who has the best body language/ confident hair tosses etc.

I suspect by university level many would but we're talking about state educated 10 year olds and 10 minutes is nothing.

2000 applicants x 30mins each = 1000 hours of interviewing or nearly 6 months of continuous time from just one teacher. And that's without any preparation time or documenting time (for the inevitable appeals).

Or are we going to use the exam to whittle down the number of applicants interviewed?

Yes of course you would do the exam first. The top applicants then get interviewed. You wouldn't interview 2000 applicants, only the ones that were above the level needed to get through the first round.

Just read your last post Retro. Do you really believe that the top scorers in the 11+ are all rich prep kids followed by the next socio-economic class etc? It's not how it happens. But what does happen is that bright less well off kid too often doesn't get entered for the exam because of the whole tutoring-is-vital fandango. What those at the top are trying to do is to help the kids who are inherently brighter but poorer get a fair crack at a place and edge out the better off and less bright but tutored. It's known as meritocracy, which middle class parents of academically average children of course won't like. You're factoring in income, but not innate intelligence. That last makes a difference but unfortunately in the current climate it's too often muffled, so that's why some of those kids need help. But they also need to apply.