Advice re CEM exam for grammar school

[sleepwouldbenice]

Hi

the grammar schools in our area have announced they are changing to the above exams from next year - the reason given is that too many pupils were being tutored to pass and these exams do not require tutoring. Overall I feel this is a great idea

My DD is in year 4 and fairly bright in most subjects so I was considering putting her in for the exams

I really don't believe in tutoring and tutoring or "training" to pass the exams as I do think they will struggle with the expectations later on. On the other hand I don't want her chances scuppered just because she is not familiar with "exam technique" (eg staying calm, coming back to harder questions etc) and think she ought to have some practice just to have an idea of what to expect. I think I would also like an independent view on her chances of passing as the primary school stays quite neutral on this

Does anyone have any experience with this exam, if tutoring (either from parents or a paid tutor) would be any good if so for how long, are there past papers, any other hints and tips?

Just want to get the balance right to be honest - happy to do something for a few weeks or a year!

Thanks in advance

Doing CEM without professional tutoring aka centres or 1-2-1 is absolutely do-able. TBH we considered this "help" for a short period of time before the exam due to pressure around (our child was one of few in class who was DIY and heard from friends "what are doing? You won`t pass then"). But both of us - me and OH felt that using professional 11+ tutors would be morally wrong.
There is a big help on market for those who want to pass 11+ -- CGP, Letts, Bond, FPTP etc books.
Make the preparation routine and reward your child for EFFORT.
The result of the exam was successful and rewarding. Unfortunately quite a few children who had the help of professional tutors didn't pass (we are talking about opt-out system).

I don't think it's fair for parents who are bright enough and have time enough to home tutor their child to suggest that it's morally wrong for others to use tutors.
Speaking as another parent who successfully home-tutored for CEM. The test is not straightforward, and many parents would find it hard to tutor their children (also some children don't take well to being taught things by their parents).

You are entitled to your opinion, Zazedonia, and I am entitled to mine.
In terms of "don't think it's fair for parents who are bright enough and have time enough to home tutor their child..." English is my second language and tbh my child's own knowledge of both subjects - English - and VR (and VR is a BIG part of CEM) is and was far better than mine. So my child was basically was doing it on her own. That`s why I am saying: yes, it is do-able. Spend your hard earned cash on smth else.

If you child is either not hugely bright, or not hugely self-motivated, then they will benefit from external or competent home tutoring.

Why is it "morally wrong"? Goldie? Presumably you bought materials for your child, you went through the exercises with them (even though you say their knowledge was better than yours in some areas), you assisted them with homework etc. I presume that's acceptable, so why is external help morally wrong?

I disagree with Zazedonia though - I don't think tutoring (whether at home or with an external tutor) will make a significant difference if the child isn't bright in the first place.

Goldie - I don't think you can say it's morally wrong. It is just an assumption that everyone is the same as you.

I'm very well educated thank you very much, and bright. However, as soon as I try to explain something to DS1 both of our stress levels go through the roof. We are very alike and do not work well together at all.

I'm pleased for you that this is not the case in your household.

I have a friend who also thinks it's 'morally wrong' to use external tutors but she is a qualified teacher and her mother used to be a headmistress so she would say that.

Everyone uses the best resources they have for their child, whether it's their own teaching ability or financial resources.

The issue remains whether it makes a blind bit of difference in the CEM test whether they are
Gold Star bright and prepared
Gold Star bright and unprepared
Silver Star bright and prepared

It's a competitive exam. So if there are more 'gold star' children than places, I would suggest that the more prepared ones would get in over the unprepared ones.

The issues seems to be whether the silver star prepared children get in over the gold star unprepared children and whether this is in their best interests. And whether you are happy to say 'you didn't get in because the system is unfair'

I apologise for the who gold star thing but I couldn't think of another way to describe it.

All of this maybe complete scaremongering but, at the same time, I imagine this is the thought process many parents go through.

I don't think that a child who is not at all bright will do well in CEM tests, even with tutoring. But I think that a child who is reasonably bright may be able to improve sufficiently with tutoring, and to do better than a somewhat brighter child who has not been tutored (whether home or externally). And a bright child who has not had any exam experience or preparation in exam techniques may well fail because of that.
I do know some children who got into a tough to get into grammar with only a bit of practice. They were the top of the class children.
Ideally, no-one would tutor, and there would be a couple of familiarisation sessions at the grammar school, and that would be it.

We can talk till the cows come home about "morally wrong", can't we? And everyone - and I mean everyone - will stick to their opinion, and a discussion wont change anything. But for the sake of clarifying: IMHO 11+ has turned to a BIG industry now. Where the benefactors (quite often) are not children but those who provide that "external help" for one and only reason - greed/money. Where there is no correlation between the tutor's pay check and and the student's achievement in the actual exam. Where there is so much pressure not only on children but on their poor parents too. Where people have to sign up their children for (few) years (sometimes) in advance. What is that??? We are talking about grammar schools at the end of the day - a system which was created for those who cant afford to pay significant amounts of money for private education. Now £££ are spent on tutoring. And please, dont tell me buying CGP/similar books is equal to years of external training how to pass 11+. And unfortunately with the CEM style exam adopted by more and more schools, tutoring becomes bigger then it was before :( And what about those kids whos parents don`t have £££ ? It is NOT an "even playing field", it is not what I believe it was created for - GS.

recycling, "The issues seems to be whether the silver star prepared children get in over the gold star unprepared children and whether this is in their best interests" . Yes, this is the point.

The tutors aren't tutoring out of greed - they're working, to earn a living, the same as most of us.
I agree that it's not an even playing field, though.
I've heard that in Germany children go to their equivalent of grammar schools by recommendation of the headteacher, rather than needing to sit an exam. I can see that causing different problems, though.

Purely anecdotal this, but we have just one super selective Grammar in our area which uses CEM. A friend's son took the test last year. Six in his year took it, all in top groups for everything at primary and apparently all at roughly the same ability. Out of the six, 3 passed and 3 didn't. The 3 that passed were all tutored privately for at least a year. The 3 that didn't were helped at home by parents. So on the basis of that I agree with Zazedonia - you can't get a child in who isn't bright enough, but tutoring can make a huge difference if your child is bright enough.

DS1 had another maths session this week with his 121 teacher.

There are gaps in his knowledge which he hasn't covered in school.

What's noticeable though, is the silly mistakes he makes either by rushing or not reading the question.

The tutor is able to stop him at exactly the point he's gone wrong and point out why.

This is what he is teaching, rather than pushing him beyond his ability.

Whether that makes it right or wrong, I have no idea.

DD was always making silly mistakes - they do improve over time so don't panic. I would however keep an eye on the tutor. Pointing out mistakes and correcting is good in the early stages but they need to move on from that and instill skills so your DC can spot when they've gone wrong and not need the prompting as that is of huge value. We tried a tutor for a while but decided to stop and do it ourselves as they hadn't got any real teaching technique other than going through papers and pointing out errors - DD wasn't really learning anything, just becoming very demotivated which really wasn't her character. We didn't do too badly either as she got into the superselective and did really well in the other two tests too.