State primary and grammar without tuition

[jollybloodyhockeysticks]

Just wondering if anyone can share their experiences. Do you have a child who went to a state primary and passed the 11+ without tutoring? Is it imperative to get tutoring for the 11+ if your child is naturally academically bright and excelling in a state primary? Tia x

My DD passed one of her 11+ exams but not the other. There was a difference of 80 marks (out of 3-400) between the two exam results, even though they were days apart.
One exam format suited her, the other didn't.
She didn't have a tutor, we did two practice papers (one of which she'd already done at school), and she chose to look at some NVR puzzles online when she was on the computer.
No pressure, as the local comp is also brilliant, we're in catchment for both.
Tutoring is definitely not a magic solution in Trafford anyway, 20 children in DD's class of 35 had tutors AFAIK, only 6 passed an entrance exam (and one of those was untutored DD), so in DD's class at least, tutoring only "worked" for 1 in 4 of them.

There are always parents on different forums who say their DCs passed without or minimum prep. But there is no way to tell if your DC will be one of them. DCs whom I personally know and who did not prepare, did not pass without an exception in my non-grammar area, even when they are the top of the class/school.

The question really is how badly your DC want to pass the exam and how much and what prep is needed for him/her - a million dollar question. There is no doubt that more you prepare, more likely you will pass. If you have a good backup option, you may not want to stress over the exam. It is up to the situation and motivation.

Even if you have a 1-2-1 tutor, you can not leave all to the tutor. It is the parent who works on the DC's weak areas, as 11+ tutors seem to use the same pre-planned package to all the DCs she teaches.

herdream1

I think you are right about not knowing for sure about your child's relative ability to others to pass the test.

Firstly, our tutor (used for 10, 1 hour sessions) made it very clear, based on many candidates experience, that her student was very capable of passing. A good tutor will a) know what they are dealing with and b) be honest enough to stop taking your money if not up to it

Secondly, if you plan to tutor for months (if not years) on top of prep schooling, the fact is you are pushing your child to hard. There will be a negative benefit to spending 7 years at a school they were not naturally capable of getting into without such help. If their existing primary school doesn't cover exam technique and reasoning then you would be foolish not to give them instruction - but intensive long term tutoring is damaging for all.

Just to add my two cents, from my experience: definitely do the books and work on vocabulary and question types at home, maybe January or March time (my experience was that I had good intentions but got lazy myself and we procrastinated the work until March and didn't really buckle down til later, but it puts stress on you so I don't recommend waiting later than that). Cover all elements of the exam up front so you know where the strengths/ weaknesses are. The MOST IMPORTANT preparation after that is to do some mock exams. You can buy them, but I also think that paying for professional ones are worth the money, and this is how I chose to prepare my son. We first started doing the Bond mocks, and what he told me by the second one was that he realised that he never did as good on the second bit of the test as the first one because he started to get tired. So, he recognised that he lacked "exam stamina" and by doing mocks regularly over the summer your child will gain this strength. Then, in those mocks you always get a detailed report of your child's strengths/ weaknesses and they tell you where they need to focus. They will ALSO give exam technique points and go over, straight after the mock, the most difficult questions and suggestions on how to approach them. My son loved the sessions after the exams because he thought they were really interesting. So, another point - some companies will offer mocks during the half terms or on weekends - it might be worth doing a few early because they will automatically pinpoint strengths/ weaknesses or gaps in knowledge.... 1 week before the real exam I was furiously searching for examples of some area of maths my son had not covered that had come up on a mock -- in these cases the Bond "How to do..." books were extremely helpful as they give examples to work through. Good luck.

That's pretty hardcore USR!

Weren't you worried that you would make it clear to your DS that this was really, really important to you, and that he'd be disappointing you if he didn't get in?

FWIW, my experience was of a DS at ordinary state primary - we bought a single pack of NFER (as was) papers a couple of weeks before and said have a shufi at this, 'cause that's what you'll be doing shortly.

He did get in BTW. Superselective. So all the hoo ha not necessary, from my own experience.

Timeforatincture - you were lucky. Most people wouldn't take that risk.

I took the approach that you don't pass a driving test without having lessons, so,the 11+ is no different - preparation is the key.

For those worried about the message they send to their children, I think the message is that you need to prepare for any exam. Exam preparation is a useful tool as children are likely to have exams for years and years to come. Even now in my profession I am still taking exams, and preparation is key to success. It doesn't have to be mad panicked and ridiculous drilling, but targeted to areas of weakness and exam technique.

I know children who pass their music exams without preparing, and that's fine if the parents want to go down that route. For me, I signal to my children that if they prepare as best as they can and then they fail, or they don't get the mark they want, then it doesn't matter as they could not have done any more.

Generally there is a direct correlation to how much effort you put in and result. You will always find an exception to the rule, but that is just that - an exception.

The 11 plus has certainly become much more competitive during the last five years in many areas of the country - Timeforatincture refers to NFER papers - this company changed its name to GL in 2006/7 - her ds may have sat his 11 plus exam 10 years ago.

Sovery, I agree with you in general about preparation - if you want to demonstrate that you have acquired a particular set of skills eg in a driving test or music exam, or if you wish to demonstrate mastery of a subject at GCSE or A level, you have to learn, practise, and prepare.

But the 11+ isn't like that. The point of it isn't to demonstrate mastery of a skill. The point is to establish whether or not a certain sort of school is suitable for a child. I'd consider the 11+ more analogous to a dress fitting than a music exam.

Soveryupset

You raise an important issue. I tried to discuss it with my son this week taking a sporting analogy.

To be "one" of the best sports players in the world takes dedication and effort. Those that put the most in will get to the top.

To be "the" best sports player in the world takes all of that, but there will be a a tiny amount of "natural ability" that means that someone will be No.1.

Probably scared them for life.

fwiw, one super selective where we are so over 2000 kids go for 150 places. I know a fair few who applied this year. The few who passed were all without exception tutored for at least a year, some far longer. Yet these are kids of broadly the same ability, so all bright sparks. Also the ones who didn't get in didn't just turn up as all had done a bit of prep at home with parents. So seems blindingly obvious that you do need to tutor. All wrong if you ask me!

Time the schools themselves suggest you prepare.All 3 in our area have it on their website and suggest materials.The one my two are going to sold them on the open day.

Tbh, because there are so few grammar schools now (164 in England), and more competition for places, then you have no choice to tutors (yourself, or third party).

The test, if CEM, are hard and vocab dependent. My child is a Y7 in a fantastic superselective, and it was well worth the tuition. I am doing the same with child 2.

What is so bad about tutoring; you are only filling your child's head with knowledge. The schoolwork will not prepare children for the exam. Mine went to state primary, did Y5 tuition and was successful.

Don't listen to the usual whingers, on here. They want all schools to be the same and to consign everyone to a comprehensive education.

Believe me, my Dc has attained a mix of L7 and a few L6 grades in Y7 Term 1. It is well worth the effort.

cocktail even in a grammar county there is NO prep in state schools.

18Years so you home tutored then, so it wasn't without tutoring? You mean without a paid tutor?

You have to remember that people lie about how much tutoring their children did. They want to be able to say that their children are such geniuses that they got in with no effort. They also don't want to be seen as pushy.

Someone said to me "oh, we haven't gone down the tutoring route, but she has been doing practice papers for 18 months". She didn't pass the grammar exams in the end (very competitive superselectives), but what the hell is 18 months of practice papers if it's not tutoring? Presumably they went through the questions she got wrong with her.

Tutoring is no guarantee of getting your child in. Lots of tutored kids don't pass where we are. We only have super selectives in neighbouring boroughs.

DS1 is at a super selective and went to a state primary. He is very bright, but he also worked hard to get in. I don't think it is a bad message that kids need to work to achieve what they want. No one would suggest that they go into their GCSEs unprepared and hope to pass with "natural ability".

To answer the OP, why wouldn't you want to put some effort in yourself and send your child in prepared for the exam? I know a boy who went into a mock 11+ exam and found the maths exam "impossible" and was quite disheartened by it. He was a boy who was considered to be quite good at maths in the state primary.

Perhaps this idea of not preparing could be extended to A levels so that students are sure of getting into the university that is tight for them.

Or even "right for them"

It depends if they need teaching, or practice of the weird type of questions. If they need teaching, then I would say the grammar is not suitable for them

Or if they have the ability to study how to do weird type of questions then grammar school is for them.

All the children I know who have passed the exam for the local super selective have been doing a significant amount of additional writing and maths practice at home for YEARS, regardless of the amount of formal 11+ tutoring they've had (and actually all the children on the top table for maths in my ds's class have had small group or individual 11+ tutoring as well for at least a year before sitting the test).

My ds is the only child on the top table for maths who didn't pass the 11+. He's also the only child on the top table who didn't have any tutoring and who hasn't ever done any extra literacy or maths work outside of school beyond the 30 minutes a week homework that the school set.

I feel a bit 'meh' about it at the moment. DS is articulate, has really good general knowledge, a high reading age, is grade four in two instruments, has fast processing speeds and is intellectually curious, but in a test which involves extended essay writing and level 6 maths he bombed because he simply hasn't been taught how to do it and the other children he sat with who passed have.

Tutoring - whether formal (ie, paid for) or informal (parents getting children to do extra work at home) queers the pitch for everyone when it comes to selection. The children who get in are bright - but there are other children just as bright, and sometimes brighter, who simply haven't been taught how to jump through the right academic hoops.

You could say that about anything though-Alevels or GCSEs.

I just wonder what these kids who have been tutored for years are doing.There isn't years of stuff to do.Being able to write a decent essay would be necessary to survive in a GS anyway but a bright kid would pick that up quickly.My dc had done zero essay writing at school(average state) and very little in 8 months of an hour a week tutoring that had to cover everything. Re level 6 maths,it really isn't onerous.Any bright kid good at maths could work through that level of workbook and pick it up easily.Did the GS not point you in the tight direction for resources?Ours does.

Rootandbranch - your post is spot-on. Parents like to think that other children who passed were over prepared while their own children passed on natural ability given the minimal preparation they did . The tricks we play with ourselves..

The fact is that for any super-selective (not 11+ system), a child will rarely pass if they haven't been extensively and specifically tutored, be that at home or outside. They may be such a rare creature but I haven't found one among the parents who have nothing to lose by telling you (usually post-Gcse level).