If you're anti grammar schools, then please answer me this:

[Proseccocino]

If your child had a gift for music, then you might send her to a school which excels musically.

If your child had a talent for sport, you might send him to an academy which excels at sport, one where he can really focus and develop in the area in which he is better than his peers.

And so on....!

So, if your child is intelligent, academically gifted... Why is it bad to say you would send her to a selective school where she can study along with other bright students?

If it's OK to separate children according to ability in sport or music or drama or technology, and send them to specialist schools which excel in these areas - why is it a different story if their talent with their academic ability?

HPFA

Your killer stat:
The poorest children in Tower Hamlets and Westminster now do better than the average for all pupils in selective counties like Kent and Lincolnshire

Are you sure it's grammar schools vs. non-grammar schools? I think the ethnic/cultural mix is starkly different and probably the overriding variable. It's impossible to know, but if you instituted a grammar system in TowerHamlets, I don't think results would necessarily drop. I think the Bangladeshi families working so hard for their children would keep on striving, whatever system you put them in. Also, I understand that the funding in the deprived parts of London is the highest in the country. Once you controlled for culture and funding, how much, if any, affect of the school system would be left?

I think far more parents can afford £25 a week (at least that is what most tutors charge in my area) than can afford the fees for a private prep. but I will take your word for it.

Sorry, Mum, I don't think I have explained myself very well. Yes to lots of 'ordinary' parents getting their children tutored pre-11+, for the reasons I outlined in my post (swimming analogy!)

This bit - It is a complete fallacy that hordes of Grammar school children continue to receive tutoring.The only people that would be in a financial position to afford this, would be parents who could have their children privately educated anyway, referred to the assertion of another poster that lots of GS children continued to receive tutoring even after they got in to the school. I just don't think it is remotely the case. It would cost a fortune to continue to tutor your child in every subject for the 5 years to GCSE!

I imagine that they wouldn't tutor for all subjects - but I can easily see parents continuing to tutor for maths for a few years.

Hmm I have an issue with tutors.
My dcs have a tutor. One (soon two) have a tutor in a MFL because that's the language we have at home and I want them to learn to write in said language, like a native would. Something that secondary will not do with them.
The other has a tutor in English because he clearly has sone difficulties, difficulties that gave been ignored throughout most of his primary years.
Basically I'm using a tutor because the system isn't working properly.

So are so many children having a tutor because the parents are pushing, they shouldn't be where they are (I personally read in that statement that working hard to get at the level you are isn't something that us seen as a good thing...) or is it because the system isn't up to scratch???

I also agree re having a tutor fur the 11+.
Sons years ago, I had to pass a test to prove that my English was good enough to do a certain course. I didn't prepare for it and it only parked because I am (and was) bilingual. Everyone else there did (bar the English guy who needed it fur his Australian visa...).
Would anyone e say that these people should just learn English and not prepare for the type if questions they will have? Of course not. Because unless you are way way above the level required (as I was and as the English guy was), you need to have an idea of what to expect to really show what you can do. It's the same fur the 11+.

"Basically I'm using a tutor because the system isn't working properly"

Are you? It reads to me like you are using a tutor because a) a particular school for it badly wrong and b) because you want your son to be bilingual.

That doesn't sound like the system not working properly......

Large numbers are using tutors to familiarise their children with an exam which otherwise they would have no notion of how to approach.

In my area most state school parents aiming for superselectives start tutoring from year 4. It doesn't take 2 years just to familiarise the children with the exam. The 2 years are spent tutoring in Maths/English to bring up overall academic level, before familiarising with the exams.

In my area most state school parents aiming for superselectives start tutoring from year 4. It doesn't take 2 years just to familiarise the children with the exam. The 2 years are spent tutoring in Maths/English to bring up overall academic level, before familiarising with the exams.

I agree haybott. This happens in my area. Parents are going for private school scholarships rather than grammars, but it is the same dynamic.

Many children in disadvantaged situations won't be tutored. Why should your child get into a grammar school over them?! Just because they're lucky enough to have parents who can afford it? What about the children who are carers for disabled parents or the children who don't sleep all night because they hear their dad beating their mum? Do they not matter? Who helps them prepare for this test? Schools aren't allowed.

My son has had a tutor for 12 months in our 25% grammar.

Some work in maths, question familiarity, but also to get him to sit down and concentrate for more than 5 minutes!

Letitia you are absolutely right, you cannot tutor a child to pass the 11+ if they are not capable.

However, it's a competitive exam. If there are 350 places and 450 children are of grammar capability, how do you decide between them? Obviously the kids who have had loads and loads of practice are going to do better - that's the entire point.

You defeat your own argument by saying you need to be familiar with the tests to do well.

This year's test was all about speed. We didn't do any timed tests at home, as he didn't want to and neither did I. Others did hours of mock exams throughout the holidays.

My son is of same level as children in his class, but he has had less prep than some and more prep than others.

That is why grammar cannot help social mobility - it fails the kids whose parents aren't supporting them.

I will be sending my sons to a grammar school if they pass, because that will be best for them, but that doesn't mean that it's fair on the others who will have a worse education as a result.

LetitiaCropleysCookbook Wed 14-Sep-16 13:38:34 This bit - It is a complete fallacy that hordes of Grammar school children continue to receive tutoring.

A couple of points I would make on this comment:

a) What does the OP mean by "Hordes" - to some it could be 5 children in a class of 30 - to others it could be 25 children in a class of 30. However, the OP may have used the word to emphasis that they didn't think it was rare.

b) Why would a parent with a Grammar school DC that was predicted a C be unwilling to invest in a tutor to help push the grade up to a B (unless no such DC exists of course)?

Why would a parent with a Grammar school DC that was predicted a B be unwilling to invest in a tutor to help push the grade up to an A (unless no such DC exists of course)?

Why would a parent with a Grammar school DC that was predicted a B be unwilling to invest in a tutor to help push the grade up to an A (unless no such DC exists of course)?

Why would a parent with a Grammar school DC that was predicted an A be unwilling to invest in a tutor to help push the grade up to an A* (unless no such DC exists of course)?

After all these parents have invested in tutors for the last X number of years to help prepare for the 11 plus (unless this is completely wrong and no parents actually do this). Why suddenly would they have a problem paying for tutors when it is their DCs GCSE/A Level grades at stake?

As for assuming that a DC who uses the service of a tutor would need to do so for all their GCSE subjects, are you suggesting that those DCs in comps./sec.mods. who must be the ones using those tutors (after all non of the Grammar School kids are) are using tutors for all GCSE subjects? Surely if they had the money for that they would be in indies/private?

After all these parents have invested in tutors for the last X number of years to help prepare for the 11 plus (unless this is completely wrong and no parents actually do this). Why suddenly would they have a problem paying for tutors when it is their DCs GCSE/A Level grades at stake?

The suggestion of the poster who made the comment that I was replying to, was that children who had been intensively tutored to beyond their natural ability (fallacy no.1), then continued to have to be tutored to keep up throughout the rest of their education (fallacy no.2).

LetitiaCropleysCookbook Wed 14-Sep-16 14:56:03 children who had been intensively tutored to beyond their natural ability (fallacy no.1), then continued to have to be tutored to keep up throughout the rest of their education (fallacy no.2).

I get where you're coming from now. I think the relatively small drop out rate and the ability profile of DCs who get Grammar places would suggest the OP is stretching things a bit. Perhaps one or two slip through the net but I don't think there are many like that.

I was tutored in mathsfor GCSE at my grammar school because the teacher was dreadful and I hadn't been taught all of the course.

By "dreadful" I mean that the after a year of his teaching the top two sets swapped places with the exception of two pupils who managed to cling on for another year before dropping down a set.

Our grammar has repeatedly asked parents to stop tutoring their children for the 11+ because many do struggle.

It's not that they don't have the ability necessarily but the school knows that there were more able children who missed out because they'd had less preparation.

They have made it perfectly clear that children will be asked to leave if they can't keep up.

Someone asked about her child's Dyslexia and was told by the head to think very carefully before applying

"In my area most state school parents aiming for superselectives start tutoring from year 4. It doesn't take 2 years just to familiarise the children with the exam. The 2 years are spent tutoring in Maths/English to bring up overall academic level, before familiarising with the exams"

Ditto in mine.

I know three children who have got in to local SS. One had a tutor in addition to being at a private prep school. One had 3 hours a week of 11+ focused small group tutoring with a tutor with a 100% track record in getting kids in, one has a teacher parent who worked with them every evening from year 4.

Tom. That is one of the reasons why i suggest that 40% should go to grammar schools !. A 40% grammar system would allow for pupils with specific difficulties such as Dyslexia/Dyspraxia and enable a bit of leeway to be given in NVR exams !

The two selective areas one local authority and the country that sends 40% to grammar schools happen to be the most successful 'fully' selective areas. This means in both these 'areas' there are no 'dustbin' schools this means the 40% idea must have some merit!

The remaining 50% can still be catered for by the same 'dreary' middle ability curriculum as in operation today. This curriculum can still be administered by teachers that either 'sub conscientiously or conscientiously let their pupils know of their contempt for the government.

However, the education of the 50% would not be altered accept improved by the deletion of the 10% of 'recidivists' that hamper the smooth and efficient running of a classroom.

Other than removing the persistent 'recidivists' from the mainstream classroom i do not know any way of improving the education of the mainstream 50%

My Sister is a Hod of a middle size Comprehensive in Wiltshire and basically could this could have been written in her words (though probably with better grammar and punctuation) .

However, if she was to even mention one of these suggestions in a 'passing' comment to a 'colleague' a fit of derision would come across from the colleague. A number of teachers would then start making up 'Chinese' whispers about what my sister had said or done and a witch hunt would evolve.

In conclusion it is much safer to obey the 'UNION' i.e get your head down , don't suggest anything different from the consensual opinions of the teaching Unions.

They have made it perfectly clear that children will be asked to leave if they can't keep up.

Bloody hell. I'm pretty sure any school could get 'stonking' results if struggling pupils were simply given the boot. At least a comp can move them down a set, give them extra support and is still responsible for their results so can't wash their hands.

In my area most state school parents aiming for superselectives start tutoring from year 4. It doesn't take 2 years just to familiarise the children with the exam. The 2 years are spent tutoring in Maths/English to bring up overall academic level, before familiarising with the exams

That maybe so, but not because the children are struggling. The 11+ exams which include Maths and English papers (some local grammars, as well as super selectives) contain questions based on the whole of the Year 6 syllabus. That is to say, some material which will not have been covered until a good 6 months after children have taken the 11+.

I wonder why state school children need tutors? Because private school children will otherwise have a huge advantage, as their schools will be coaching towards the 11+ and will make damn sure their children have covered everything they will need to know.

But Sandy, even if you are right, nothing changes the fact that children can change an awful lot between 10 and 16.

Some an lose focus, some can find some. The rigidity of the grammar system is the problem and the implication that you cannot change your intelligence and therefore success.

What about the children who are carers for disabled parents or the children who don't sleep all night because they hear their dad beating their mum? Do they not matter? Who helps them prepare for this test? Schools aren't allowed.

That is exactly why the application process needs to be changed. Responsibility for administering the 11+ should be returned to the Primary schools. If all children were entered for the exam, except those who opted out, and the Primary schools undertook to set practice papers, and ensure all the material likely to appear in the exam had been covered by the time the exam was taken, then there would be no need for tutoring.

striped how on earth do you know whether all the kids at a secondary school an hour away have tutors or not?

Guess which area of the country has the most underperforming schools?

uk.news.yahoo.com/250-000-pupils-being-taught-110746273.html

You might say 'of course Kent has way more underperforming schools than other counties, all those secondary moderns can't be expected to meet floor standards when all the bright kids go elsewhere'. But you need to remember that these failing schools are constantly monitored by Ofsted, are highly pressurised places to work in due to the levels of scrutiny, and suffer extremely high staff turnover as a result.