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

"but the clever child, who spends ages watching TV (but with just the right bit of 11+ prep) is still probably going to outperform them in the 11+"

And probably going to outperform the slightly cleverer child who's done all the same things - watching tv etc, but has had no 11+ prep, and no regular writing/maths/reading practice at home.

That's the bottom line. If you can't 'control' for parental input (including the most vital parental input of all - entering the child for the 11+ in the first place) then the state shouldn't be sponsoring selection at 11. It discriminates against children who may have perfectly loving, kind and interested parents, but parents who may also not be academically ambitious for them, no matter how clever the child.

Then stop music exams,sports clubs,dance exams, GCSEs,Alevels too oh and top comps in expensive areas.

"I think the blisteringly clever, but socially disadvantaged child of uninterested parents - gazing wistfully through the gates of the local grammar, while en route to their secondary modern is largely a mythical construct."

What - you think the only clever children or children with potential are those with parents who want to/are able to support their schooling?

"Then stop music exams,sports clubs,dance exams, GCSEs,Alevels too oh and top comps in expensive areas."

Who's talking about stopping anything?

If there were hundreds of state schools which could select all of their pupils on the basis of their ability in subjects which are simply inaccessible to children from ordinary families I'd be concerned about that too.

People can do what they like to enhance their children's education - good on them.

My concern is about academic selection at 11 in state schools.

So not financial selection then(when parents buy places through postcode) or career advantages in the sports,music and arts many kids are excluded from then.

"Personally I don't know of any parent who put their child in for the 11+ thinking they were likely to fail"

Really? I would say that all the parents I know thought their children were likely to fail. Which is a pretty reasonable position when there are 10 bright children are applying per place and a lot comes down to luck on the day.

Why are subjects like maths, English, NVR and VR (which are what grammars use in selection) inaccessible to children from ordinary families? Most people now have access to the internet and can visit the 11+ website.

"It discriminates against children who may have perfectly loving, kind and interested parents, but parents who may also not be academically ambitious for them, no matter how clever the child."

Why not find out why such parents do not see the importance of education rather than stop it for everyone?

I don't think it's about the importance of education. It's more of a choice towards a very specific one.

For example, Finland have one of the highest rates of education in the world. However, school doesn't start until 7, no homework, no selection and no testing until everyone leaves at 18. They also have no private schools.

I value my son's education massively but I don't necessarily show that through making him do daily extra maths at 8.

Different people do believe in teaching their children different things; playing violin, doing football or dance. My child will never get into the Royal Ballet School, but it doesn't mean I think the school should be shut down.

It isn't at all the same as doing GCSEs/A-levels without preparation. The test is designed to test intelligence/potential NOT knowledge ie to be tutor proof. It's not perfect by any means but I think the benefits of extensive preparation are limited. The exception is possible maths - not all the concepts on the practice tests had been covered at school. They werent hard questions but required some knowledge. Having said that, DS said the actual test was easier. There was little or no correlation between how well the children I know did and how much preparation they had done. I'm repeating myself now, but people seem to believe it's unheard of to get into a super selective without huge amounts of preparation. It's not true. My son has never done extra work outside school. He did about 6 hours practice including some emergency algebra lessons and passed Reading School ( we think - final cut off not known yet). Daughter did a little more, but not much (12 hours?) and is at Kendrick. I was a little worried about how little DS had done but the actual test and his result restored my faith in the system a little.

Irregular - that's not strictly true. Some 11+ tests are just VR/NVR, others have Maths papers, SPAG, essay writing, comprehension - they are not just intelligence tests, they are not looking for general 'potential', they are looking for specific things, including knowledge. It's possible to generalise about 'the 11+ in kent' or 'the 11+ in bucks', say, but not about the 11+ in England/NI.

The vocabulary levels required for the Bucks 11+ paper are very high.

I don't think any natural ability could prepare a child for that.

Winkiewinkola

I think you can prepare a child. Dc2 is going to sit the cem 11+ this year. But like most things in life, talent and training will get you through. In fact Bucks will be used as a prep to get used to an exam room feel.

I have spent the main focus on vocab, and whilst dc2 is not a reader, or indeed a great one, dc2 has managed to pick up a lot of the Vocab that has been historically tested in CEM. I have just purchased a slew of books this weekend to give dc2 the edge against peers when sitting the exam for the chosen grammar school.

As for maths and nvr, dc2 seems to be ok, not great, but we still have 8 months. We are not aiming for a high score, just enough to get in. Vocab is the key to the exam. The more words you know the easier it is to understand the questions. It also helps in the synonyms and antonyms questions.

portico have you done any timed tests yet? I done a few with my DD (but she is sitting GL assessment 11 + not cem) and the speed required has surprised me and my DD. I glad I know this now and not eight weeks before.

Hi MinimalistMommi

We try timed tests, in a fashion, but are unsuccessful yet. When dc1 did the exam in 2013, dc1 struggled with times until a few weeks before the exam. So I decided at this stage to reinforce the basics, but just get them to do more in the same time. So, I did in effect time the works, but I was more interested in correctness than speed at first.

So should I not be worrying yet portico that she is leaving lots of questions at the end for VR and Maths papers? I've been worrying about it! She can complete English but I know they are 'easier' to complete in required time. It's nice to speak to someone who has already been through this, thank you.

Hi MinimalistMommi

I would work the weaknesses. Eg. Mine struggles with fractions and ratios. I have devoted time to fixing the basics on these topics.

Find your dc weaknesses, and work them together.

portico this afternoon we spent an hour on long division (one of her weaknesses) I think she is getting there with it but I now have a headache.

I have 2 DDs who have passed the 11+ for a superselective. This amount of extra work is excessive. It really is.

MinimalistMommi, With maths, especially the more tedious bits like long division, little and often is the key. If you just give it a break then come back to it, what seemed difficult gets easier, just by doing nothing but giving it time to sink in. With VR and NVR, dd speeded up a lot on everything in the last couple of months.

Rabbit, dd has found there is a lots of homework, but I would not say it is excessive. I assume it is much the same for those in the academic streams at comps as presumably they are heading for roughly the same levels at GCSE. However, dd did learn pretty early on the error of leaving it all until Sunday night and is noticeably less argumentative when I suggest doing some of it earlier in the week.

I agree with you LaQueen about speed and accuracy. It's the speed that is really worrying me and how to improve on it. In our area it is a minute per maths question and 40 seconds per VR question. DC will also sit an English paper. We don't have NVR in this region.

And this really is where the whole 'tutor proof' bit falls down isn't it.

Because you can't teach IQ, but you can teach exam technique. Therefore, those tutored will always do better than those who haven't because they've learnt how to take the test. They've practiced the pacing, sitting still for that long and focus.

This is the reason why, in Bucks, the new tutor proof test resulted in higher levels of private school children getting into grammar.

Personally, these are all skills my DS lacks in abundance at the moment, even though he's bright, articulate and inquisitive.

If I don't teach him exam technique to some extent I'm setting him up to fail but still not sure whether I should.

Arguably these are also the skills you need to cope with grammar but there are many children who will never get the chance to find out.

Just thank you for the encouragement. DC is sitting watching Esio Trot we recorded and seems happy and relaxed so it looks like she not worried about the long division thankfully. I will try it again later this week to see if she has got it. I'm not great at maths. DC has a tutor, I thought I wouldn't have to do much at home, how wrong was I?! You can tell this is my first DC going through this. It's great to hear your DD speeded up in last couple of months, that gives me hope!

Rabbit, just re-read and realised I totally misunderstood your post. Sorry.