How many of you have used tutors to help get your child into a grammar school?

[Blossomhill]

Just wondering really how common it is? Ds has just started his and it is not cheap! Am I wasting my money or is it worth it for a year?
Thanks

miljee tutoring is for exam technique - the state primaries used to prepare pupils for the 11+ they don't any more, in fact some of syllabus required for the 11+ will not be covered before the children sit the exam in year 6. The prep schools do cover the exam. If children from state primaries were not tutored - grammar schools would be on the whole dominated by children moving from the private sector. You don't have to pay for a tutor you can do it yourself., you don't have to be middle class (i'm not) but you do need to tutor your child. I paid for a turor, my child is bright he deserves his place.

i farkign hope mine get in.

Presumbly it also depends on temperments. I don't particularly have a lot of patience so the idea of tutoring my oldest child (who can be more than a little bit stubborn) fills me with dread.

If you have a clear A student, then fair enough, I can see that you might not bother. But the difference between grammars and the rest locally is huge. At one of the local primaries, over 2/3 of pupils are tutored, with a large proportion starting from Year 3 (in fairness this isn't all for 11+, and it is a fairly middle class area). I think that you would have to be very brave to leave it just to your child and a few practice tests.

In terms of the schools that you're referring, I'm afraid very few children seem to go there without some degree of tutoring, though agree that in some cases this is by the parent rather than by a paid tutor. But if you ask the boys whether they were coached for the exam they almost always say yes. If you have a good tutor then they should be able to assess your child's chances from fairly early on. Many of the tutors have been preparing for these exams for some years. The challenge is actually getting hold of the numbers of the better tutors!

unless they have NEEDS titoring fro too long i coutner producitve
apprently they reach a peak after abotu 6 months

My DS didn't have a tutor, but he did do lots of practice papers and (which I still can't believe) was happy to work with me and DH on them. Even the brightest child is unlikely to pass 11+ without practise - my DS got way below pass mark on first few practise papers, but dropped very few points in the final tests. My DD is a different kettle of fish. I think she'd do really well at a grammar school, all her work is excellent but her mind doesn't work in the same way as the tests do. I'm not automatically getting her a tutor (unlike 80% of her year) but will seriously look at it if she struggles with the past papers when we start them mid next year. I do agree that they shouldn't be tutored to get them into a school which will be too challenging for them, but also know of very bright children who have failed only because they haven't practised. As already said, exam technique has a lot to do with it and you are up against the private schools who really focus on entrance exam/11+ techniques. Our LEA's policy is not to coach for 11+ in school.

Soup dragon ~ exactly. Also if wanting what's best for my child makes me pushy and middle class then yes I am.

Oddly enough the subject of tutoring to get DS1 (8!) into Wi came up in the Dragon house today (to avoid forking out 12k pa for a private school named after a shopping centre. I wanted to should "He's EIGHT FFS!" but restrained myself.

Does Gr start with a colour? If so, I went there...

sd ~ how weird so did I!!!!

Yes does start with a colour.

I prepared DS and DD for the 11+ myself. As has been said the important thing it is simply exam preparation - many children will not have even seen examples of the 35 types of verbal reasoning questions which might come up, many will never have taken three (as it is in our area) test papers in a morning. We worked through past papers and one set of practice papers to the timings which would happen on the day to make sure there were no nasty shocks. When we picked DS up after he did it I had never seen so many children look so totally shocked! Neither DS nor DD were worried on the actual day at all and were fine when they came out.

SD ~ I think we are about same age

I'm pretty much the same age as the school!

I find this SOOO depressing! Surely the only justification (and the original conception of) for the 11+ is that it provides an opportunitiy for bright children from disadvantage to step out of this disadvantage? What it has become, in my opinion, is a way for middle class parents to avoid paying 85 grand in school fees. My dd went to a very socially mixed primary school - it is the catchment school for a big and "difficult estate. There were 60 children in her year 6 class, 37 too the test, 11 passed. All the children who passed (including my dd) were the children of professional, degree (or equivalent) educated middle class parents. I just don't see how this is fair - and I am as guilty as anyone else of working the system. I helped my daughter to prepare in a way that the vast majority of other parents in the class couldn't do - they wouldn't even know where to go to buy past papers, even if they could afford to buy them. It's iniquitous - and it will continue as long as hypocrites like me use our privileged position to get more privilege for our children. Sorry, rant over.

Seeker ~ I don't feel bad at all. My dh works so hard for the money he earns. We both come from working class families. Dh and I didn't have the opportunites that most of our friends had. I couldn't go on school holidays etc etc. So now that I can help my ds out I will. Believe me we can't afford this tutor but will be going without other things to make sure we can just about afford it. As I have said before I don't doubt for a minute that he can do it and he probably would pass the test without tutoring but I am not taking any chances. I want my children to have all the opportunities that I didn't have.

But it's not about money really is it? We have very little money (I don't go out to work and dp is currently earning very little.) And I'm sure that some of the "disadvantaged" families I was talking about actually have more spending power than we do. But we have the education and knowledge and the confidence to work the system they don't. We've been through the education system and know how it works, they don't. We aren't intimidated by teachers and head teachers - they are.

There seem to be quite a few of us with children taking tests for the same schools in a year or two's time - would anyone be up for a tea shop meet-up coinciding with a test???

DS1 got in to Wi without tutoring. DS2 (going into Year 5) and DS3 (going into Year 4) are similarly just going to have to take their chances with me throwing the odd practice paper at them. If you're struggling with verbal reasoning tests, these people do a handy booklet called 'Verbal Reasoning Tests Explained' which does what it says on the tin . If English is more of a problem, I found \link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-English-Parents-Katherine-Hamlyn/dp/0953265935\this book) useful for comprehension and essay practice and tips on how to help your child.

DS1 got into grammar without any tutoring. We did get a tutor for DS2, not because he lacked any ability - if anything he's brighter than DS1 - but because he lacked confidence in his ability. It didn't matter how often we told him he was OK and would cope with the exam, he was convinced that he would completely bum out. Getting a tutor boosted his confidence, mainly I think because it was someone other than a parent who was telling him he could do it. He started grammar today .

I don't necessarily go along with the view that this is middle class parents manipulating the system. We certainly couldn't afford private school fees for one child, let alone three. And if wanting the best for your child and using the means at your disposal to achieve that is being pushy (what the hell does pushy mean anyway?? why has it become a derogatory term?), then I suppose we are pushy. However, I suspect that the vast majority of parents fall into that category regardless of the means at their disposal.

If grammars were abolished, high schools would develop (if they haven't already - the ones round here have) catchment areas, which can then be manipulated by parents with enough income to purchase properties within that area. This has always happened to a certain degree and always will. I don't see how employing a tutor is any different. I certainly wouldn't get one for mine if I didn't believe he had the ability to cope at a grammar - intelligence is not the only asset a grammar school child needs; they need application and an ability to cope with pressure too. We are currently dithering about what to do with DS3 (just going into Y5) as, although bright, he is happy to just bumble along.

The dcs are at one of the prep schools local to Wi. Whilst it is true that the majority of boys looking to leave at 11 do take and pass the 11+, only about a third go on to Wi or Wa. The majority don't take up their place instead using the 11+ experience as a trial run for entrance eam/scholarship exams into an independent school. So whilst it is true that the prep schools do prepare for the test, I'm not so sure that they are full of people who are trying to get a grammar place.

This may change at Year 7 now that one of the schools is also offering an entrance into Year 9. Potentially I guess some parents who feel that their son just missed out at the 11+ may well pay the £8k in order to be prepared for the new 13+ (not sure that the "shopping centre" school will be keen on preparing its pupils for the 13+ at the grammars...).

Exactly, Seeker!

But what is the point in securing a good education and becoming informed about society if that society then expects you to refuse to use that education in case it gives you an advantage over those who haven't had it to the same level?? Truly bizarre.

My father came from a very poor, working class background (you know, no hot running water, outside loo, no bathroom - very Monty Pythonish) and secured a place at grammar school. That then led him to getting a good job and bettering himself. My sisters and I had a much more secure childhood than he had had and all went to selective schools. Should he have stayed at the same level as his brothers and sister who didn't get to grammar school, because that was unfair??

Seeker I don't see how donning a hair shirt and beating your chest about it is going to help though....

It's not something that you or I or any other parent can change.

But why do they need to be coached? Surely the tests are meant to get at ability and reasoning, rather than stuff they've learned?

If children can be coached to get through these exams then they are totally and utterly farcical, IMO and grotesquely unfair to poorer parents.

seeker, there's a theory that everyone now has a fair chance in the UK as we've ironed out most differences therefore those who continue to do badly at school usually have parents who aren't very bright anyway and therefore there's a certain logic to a country reaching a point where all the bright have done well and their children are clever and the "dregs" or whatever stay there at the bottom with low IQ and that children of the better off doing better is just normal natural selection at work rather than unfairness. It's another theory. I don't entirely agree with it because IQ is not so simple a heritable thing but it's ceratinly an explanation worth considering.

We are all born into unfair situations - some of us are very pretty or very ugly and that effects work finding partners etc. Some are very tall (you earn more if you are taller) and some are very clever. Unless we end up cloning everyone we will never iron out those birth differences and advantages.

In our area some children leave the private schools for grammar schools in the state system - not many, may be 1 or 2 a year from 40 children and usually because there are money problems at home.

The problem is not the parents trying to get their children in - it's the disparities between schools. Parent's shouldn't have to feel that their children need to jump through hoops to get a good education. Also the fact that there are just a few grammar schools left over from a previous system makes in unecessarily competitive - when there was a proper grammar / secondary modern system it was expected about 20% of all children would go to grammar schools. Now many grammar schools only take about 1 - 5% of all entrants, which makes it incredibly elitist. Large numbers of kids who could "cope" with the academic environment won't get in. To me the problem is having the vestiges of a left-over old system running alongside the comprehensive system, rather than concentrating on how to get the conprehensive system to work effectively.