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?

So what is it that you're actually looking to achieve from an interview then?

I appreciate that many teachers will be able to tell whether a child is clever or not in an interview, although I can't quite see how you'd administer it.

Indecisive, what would be the point in interviewing AFTER the exam? Are you only going to interview the children who gain a certain score? That would make it irrelevant to children who can't get the required grade because of their disadvantage.

If you want to interview all children that apply, which you'd have to if you're going to achieve equality of opportunity, you are asking a hell of a lot from already under resourced state schools. Especially if you want one to one interviews for 20-30 minutes, presumably with the same few people to keep it fair.

And anyway, what exactly is it we should be telling interviewers to look for? Do we get them to decide against awarding places to children who are bright but who have had a decent level of support from their parents?

Or do we let in clever children who have done a few practice papers with their parents, but not the clever children whose parents thought they'd better get some help because they've been told that the maths test is based on KS2 work but they know their child won't have covered it all when they are still only in the first month of year six?

What is it that you want to achieve from making teachers judge which children are worthy of a much coveted school place ahead other children, all of whom are equally entitled to a state school place?

Why wouldn't it be more efficient and more accurate to get information from primary schools?

Soooo do tell how is the allocation of a couple of fsm places going to boot out these sharp elbowed wicked m/c parents?

And why are they allocating places if wealth is neither here nor there?

How does it work?

I thought places were reserved for fsm kids who passed the 11+ regardless of grade?The higher grade you get the more chance you have of getting in. Apparantly the evil m/c tutor their kids so much it inflates their grades which won't change.The new system reduces the number of places available so you basically just have the same system with two or three fewer places for non fsm kids.

WooWoo you could very easily interview those who haven't achieved the required score if they met certain other criteria. The time factor is an important factor in this, but there's really no other valid objection. Unless you're a middle class tutoring parent with a borderline child....

WooWoo obviously primary school data would come into play too.

Retro, they have to start somewhere.

Oh and what are we interviewing?You can be bright at all sorts of things.You may get a gifted child at maths,not so hot at literacy and vice versa.You may get a gifted scientist or coder or......the list is endless.

G&T kids can have poor social skills and private school push the public speaking so I can see more privately educated kids benefitting from such an idea and many bright kids missing out.Poverty can bring a lack of confidence which is worth baring in mind too.

"Unless you're a m/c parent with a borderline child" Do you know how rude that sounds.

You interview, say, the top 250 scoring kids.

As Ventura said, I think you totally underestimate what these interviewers are able to do and how much they can assess potential.

Ok, so what is it that you're actually looking for in these interviews? Be specific.

Is a clever middle class child allowed to be placed higher up the list if their parents did the tutoring themselves, but they go right down to the bottom of the list if their parents paid someone to do it for them? What are we going to look for from the clever private school children that apply?

I'm all for making access to grammar schools easier and fairer for people, how does interviewing help to achieve that?

Are the kids from Outstanding primaries going to the bottom too?

And yes what are we interviewing on?

In the context it's not rude at all. After all, when the chips are down, that's precisely what the defensiveness is about. Middle class parents running scared that positive discrimination and even access initiatives will cause their less bright kids to miss out. Someone has to be borderline academically, why not the middle class? It's a fact, not rude.

Oh and I have a friend who interviews for scholarships in a private school.They put a lot of stock in the rounded individual ie the ones who play instruments,sport and do plenty of out of school activities which in turn gives them more to talk about.

You need money to do out of school activities and lots of it.

How does interviewing the top 250 kids improve access for bright children whose parents can't be arsed to enter them for the test, let alone take them to an interview.

You come across as if you want to improve economic diversity in schools by dragging the top down, or by removing them from state education all together.

Wouldn't it be so much better to provide support directly to families to enable them to access the system and to prepare their children for academic success?

Running scared,do me a favour.

Scared of there being 2 or 3 less places.

As I said by your theory the evil m/c will just tutor more to ensure they're not anywhere near the cut off.Those that can't ie the poorer ones are more likely to be near the cut off.That is your theory.

I'm all for getting more poorer kids in but the fsm scheme is utter crap and just there to sound good.

WooWoo, if you take the trouble to read how the top universities go about their selection of the most academically able then you'll understand the quite complex process some would like to adopt. Both the process itself and the reasons for it. Indecisive is absolutely correct that the very experienced teachers in charge of the process would very quickly and accurately be able to sort the sheep from the goats, though there might be the occasional casualty on the margins - but that's life.

Am still strongly against interviewing. One of the redeeming features of the 11+ is that at least it's anonymous. Interviews allow for personal biases re accent/dress/colour/ethnicity etc to creep in - unacceptable.

You still haven't told us how.

Again these are 10 year old kids,not university students.

Also university students have a specific subject they want to read 11+ candidates don't.

Retro scholarships to the vast majority of private schools would be pretty easy to bag for most students getting a place at a superselective these days. It's simply the word 'scholarship' which makes them sound good. Private schools don't necessarily look for the same things as the top grammars,indeed frequently what they want is very different and so your friend's experience may not be particularly germane.

So do tell what should an 11+ interview cover and how do you define a bright child worthy of a grammar place?

Come on OP, have faith - these are professionals, and 'personal bias' has no place. That's just a slur on senior teachers tbh.

There's a clear parallel between top university interviews and academic interviews at an earlier stage, so the repetition that 'these aren't university students' carries absolutely no weight.

Ok Retro well I guess I'd be attempting to gauge how the thought processes of the child worked, and that's probably best done by a series of general questions, seeing where the various responses go.

You still haven't answered the question.

You seem to be full of a lot of ideology and not a lot of substance oh and also to have a huge chip re "m/c parents" which is getting tedious.

Thought process on what?

You are avoiding the questions Ventura.

We aren't talking about university selection processes. The whole process of applying for university is completely different to the process of applying to a school to sit their 11+. University's aren't as limited on places as grammar schools, they have other courses they can offer, there are other university's that might accept a student on exactly the same exam results, there is clearing.

Kent and Bucks apparently have thriving appeal systems, but it's not true for most of the country.

I could read up on how university's go about selecting the most academically able, and I probably will when my dc are at that stage, but for now, it's irrelevant. Especially considering that university's aren't looking for the most academically able with hidden potential, they are looking for the students that are most likely to be successful in their degree.

You're talking about adding interviews to the admissions process we currently have for entry to grammar schools. So, what is it you're going to look for in these interviews to decide who is the most deserving of a school place?

How is interviewing going to make educational opportunity more equal at secondary school?

Well this m/c place stealer is off to bed.Got to get my 10 year old up at 5am tomorrow in order to start his daily 10 hours of tutoring schedule.