Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Tutoring for 11+ - this Guardian article must surely be exaggerated?

80 replies

KittyCorncrake · 12/10/2009 18:13

here

OP posts:
Original poster
KittyCorncrake · 12/10/2009 18:14

Sorry - I mean Observer article

OP posts:
mumblechum · 12/10/2009 18:16

Good grief.

I really don't think it's necessary, esp. if the parents aren't complete thickos.

Our ds passed with no tutoring,but I went through papers with him a couple of times a week for about 6 months.

5am start is just mental. Poor kids

Morosky · 12/10/2009 18:17

It seems mad, I teach in a grammar school area and am not aware of extensive coaching but I suppose it must happen.

Supporting this article I currently know of a girl who did not get into the grammar despite being outstandingly clever, much cleverer than many who do get in. Her parents did not coach her and the common opinion is that is why she did not get a place.

MusterMix · 12/10/2009 18:18

i think London grammars are the worst tbh
and newspapers only write for london

QED

ShellingPeas · 12/10/2009 18:37

Well, I don't think it is exaggerated greatly - having just been through the 11+ grind I think the article refers specifically to super-selective grammars. For these some extra tuition is necessary because if you don't tutor, you don't pass with a high enough score. In my area of Kent, where there are super-selectives, it is not uncommon for parents to tutor from Year 4 onwards, at a minimum of £30 a week. And, of course, there are parents who send their DCs to prep schools where they do practice tests weekly and then also to a tutor outside of school to (hopefully) ensure their child a place. I have heard of a child who had all extra-curricula activities cancelled (Brownies, horse-riding etc) just so that she could do more 11+ homework.

My DS who has just sat the 11+ is a bright child and would benefit from the grammar school system. However, although he has run through practice papers and had some help from a tutor with his maths (as much of what is covered in the 11+ isn't in the curriculum at yr 6) we don't had the monetary resources to coach to this level so will just have to rely on his natural ability...

seeker · 12/10/2009 18:40

Tutoring is the norm in our bit of Kent - and we aren't even in a super-selective area. I don't think the article is exaggerated at all. A friend of mine is setting up a business as an 11+ tutor,a nd even though she hasn't finished setting up she has a waiting list already!

Elevenplus · 12/10/2009 19:54

It is silly but you can stand by and let it all happen around you or do something to help your child out. If you try and they don't make it then that means that a grammar would not work for your child. There is a lot of advice on the web but I agree with Morosky, MusterMix, ShellingPeas & seeker.
Recently I tried these free 11+ online practice papers with DD and they seem really good.
The promo code I was given is AmericanExpress really does work, I got a free pack of 4 papers straight away into my account, registered DD and he started the first test within 5 mins.
DD is hooked, its not expensive and it includes tutoring!
Has no one else been using this?...

jobhuntersrus · 12/10/2009 20:02

Just last week I had a chat with ds teacher re 11+. He is in yr 5 so got a year to go. She told me alot of the things in the maths paper are not taught until later on in yr 6 so typically unless a child has had extra tutition they won't have covered these things yet. Seems grossly unfair. We can't afford private tutor so we are going to attempt to coach him ourselves with a little help from fil who is a retired primary teacher.

He is a bright boy and out of all the schools in our area the grammar would certainly suit him best if only we can get him in.

cherryblossoms · 12/10/2009 20:38

It is exaggerated. Ds passed into a competitive grammar last year and no way was he doing two hours preparation! A paper a week in the white-heat of the run-up, more like.

However ... I did employ a tutor to check he'd covered the maths and English. It's a sad thing but you can't count on a London primary to have covered that. Forget end-of-year-6 subjects, we weren't convinced they'd have covered start-of-year-5 subjects. But that's another story ... .

That article is crazy scare-mongering. But it does touch on something interesting - why so much tutoring? It's not ALL down to the 11+.

cherryblossoms · 12/10/2009 20:39

Start-of-year-6 subjects. Not start-f-year-5. It wasn't quite that bad.

scarletlilybug · 12/10/2009 20:48

I suppose the thing is, once some kids get tutoring then other children need extra help just to keep up with the tutored ones...

Pyrocanthus · 12/10/2009 21:02

Massively exaggerated for this part of the world, but I can't speak for others. It is true that the maths covers ground that the children won't have learned in class when they take the test. And I'm sure what scarletlilybug says is true.

Jajas · 12/10/2009 21:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Quattrocento · 12/10/2009 21:31

My DD announced at the age of 8 that she wanted to be a lawyer. Now at 11, she's refined this down to being a prosecutor. She's a natural born litigator, entirely ruthless in pursuit of the letter of the law and rejects all parental lines of argument about the spirit of the law.

So I do think that some 10 year olds know what they want to do, although of course this is heavily influenced by what their parents and relatives do.

I'm no fan of excessive tutoring for the 11+, although I've learned from MN that some parents have to tutor because some grammars, instead of testing the pupils on verbal reasoning and numerical reasoning, actually test knowledge. And a fair chunk of the knowledge that these grannars test hasn't been taught at state primaries. Entirely ridiculous to test knowledge IMO but there's no accounting for (some) heads.

Pyrocanthus · 12/10/2009 21:39

I do know some 8 year-old girls who were born to be lawyers, but I'm not sure they know that yet.

paranoiabigdestroyer · 12/10/2009 22:05

This is so depressing. I'm tending to agree with the comment in the article that the only way forward is to scrap the 11+ as the tutoring circus prevents working class children from getting a grammar place and at the opposite end of the spectrum the heavily-tutored child isn't necessarily going to thrive with the pace of a grammar school classroom. I don't know what could replace the 11+ as a means of selecting children though, and where I live the grammar system is so deeply entrenched dismantling it would be a logistical and political nightmare.

Grammar places in Essex are for the very highest achievers - there are only 6 in the whole county as far as I remember (3 each for the boys and girls).

Here in Kent there are a lot of grammars. DC is in Y5 and the easiest thing would be to just opt out of the 11+ - but the other good schools here are selective too - they admit on church attendance.

seeker · 12/10/2009 23:08

I'm going to be accused of riding my hobby horse, but the really depressing thing aout the grammar school system is that the sort of child it was devised for - that is the bright child from a very disadvantaged background - has no chance at all of getting into one mowadays. Grammar schools have become a way for already privileged families to add to their privilege.

In my dd's very socially mixed primary school - on the edge of a massive housing estate and while a significantly higher than agerage % of free school meals - the only kids who pass the 11+ are the children of middle class professional families. It's soul destroying!

Cortina · 13/10/2009 07:37

Why can't they devise a test that checks for potential and ability? Like an age appropriate university entrance exam?

I also know many who got in narrowly through appeal. There needs to be a parent with time necessary to jump through the appropriate hoops in this case. Again this discriminates.

janinlondon · 13/10/2009 10:56

London grammars??????

ampere · 13/10/2009 11:04

I'm all for banning grammars in their current form for these very reasons. This system is so GROSSLY unfair it'd be shocking that it is still perpetuated EXCEPT that many of those who are in a stronger position to change the system actually benefit from the status quo, ie those who can afford to prep and thus 'save' themselves £80k- ish.

Fwiw, I'm ex- grammar, but I object strongly to those who'd say 'YOU benefited from a grammar yet you seek to deny others that opportunity'- to which I'd reply that yes, but the establishment I called a state grammar back in 1973 isn't the same beast any more at all. There was one girl in my class of 30 who came from a prep school. Now 75% of the girls there come from private preps. That just about sums up my opinion.

Unless we find a truly fair way of testing DCs for entry , perhaps we need to 'weight' the results of the 11+ depending on whether that DC went to prep or was tutored. And I know the latter is impractical because as the article tells us, tutoring is a secretive and shady area! You'd be depending on other parents to 'shop'. Which I'm sure they'd be only too happy to do IF their 'outlay' didn't pay off!

I'd also perhaps advocate a re-assessment at 12 or 13, to allow an 'out' to those over-prepped DCs who squeaked into grammar but have struggled ever since to re-evaluate their position AND to allow those who didn't get in at 11+ another go.

I will readily say there were certainly girls in my grammar who patently shouldn't have been there, and I've subsequently met women, as an adult, who achieved pretty much the same exams as I did but out of secondary moderns.

11 is WAY too young to making these sort of divisions.

Finally, a great quote:

The Left Wing hate grammars because they entrench privilege. The Right Wing love grammars because they entrench privilege.

Cortina · 13/10/2009 11:17

Friends of mine at a grammar in Kent all seem to have come out with average or below average results?

Other friends at Beaconsfield High seem to done incredibly well in exams. Maybe there are good and bad grammars so they are not 'great' across the board. Perhaps this is obvious?

Interestingly ampere nearly all I know at Beaconsfield High (Grammar) came from a feeder prep.

thedollshouse · 13/10/2009 11:21

It makes me glad we are not in a grammar area as I couldn't be doing with all the competitive parenting.

isgrassgreener · 13/10/2009 11:33

True for London grammar schools

Love the quote above!

andiem · 13/10/2009 11:42

I think people are forced to tutor for a number of reasons:
Kids at prep school get tutored and have exam prep at school
The state primaries in our area do absolutely nothing to prepare the children for the entrance exams
The pass rate is ridiculous 98% last year for the boy's grammar where we are and there were 2500 boys for 120 places

I think they should scrap the grammar system. We are tutoring ds1 for private school entrance exams he is at a state primary and tbh the tutor woman is a bit crazed and tries to get us to pay for lots of extra sessions. I am on the point of just knocking it all on the head and doing it myself!

Rocky12 · 13/10/2009 12:18

We live in Bucks where they still have a number of grammar schools, anyone who says their child just turned up for the test and passed is fibbing....