If you had paid for private school and also paid for a tutor, and your DC still didn't pass the 11+ would you consider it a waste of money?

[sandyballs]

My ante natal group have been having this debate as a couple of them paid for private schools and tutored with the view to getting into the local grammer but their children didn't pass and they are now going to the local state high school.

Whereas a couple of kids who did go to the local state primary are now going to the grammer.

I'm just interested in MN views, although I'm obv aware of the tension and conflict over private v state so go easy!

you are in area of seriously oversubscribed and competed for schools then sandy balls, so a completely different situation. Tiffin / Sutton and their ilk take the top few %, not the top 20% which is normal grammar stream.
That said, it's all the more reason for parents to be realistic about their child chances and not put them through hours of intense tutoring and spend an absolute fortune if they have very little chance of gaining a place.

Hahaha lovingthecoast

State primaries in our state grammar area will not even tell you if a child is capable of sitting the entrance examination, let alone prepare for the tests!

The independent schools do however prepare parents and children from Y4 to find more suitable secondary provision if a child is not going to cope with the rigour of the grammar schools.

OP- I wouldn't say it was a waste as long as the child had benefitted from the experience. How can education ever be wasted?

Indeed, the Sutton grammars are super-selectives, and many children across about 5 boroughs (or more) are being tutored from yr 3 to try for a place.

Surely parents need to view it either as a gamble, which either pays off or doesn't, or else an investment in supporting their general education.

Tbis is theoretical for me on many levels, but if I were pursuing such a route I would save the capacity to pay for education for private secondary rather then primary - with a lightly tutored (for the practice and preparation) stab at the grammars.

Blu - that was what we did i.e. we put DCs through state primary and saved the money for a private secondary education. The 'funny' thing is that a nursery friend put her DC into a prep and about £80k later our kids are going to the same school again :)

If the private school and tutor didn't do anything else for my dc than get them through this test, then I'd think they were a waste of money in the first place.

I would also be very worried. People see the selection as the end-whereas it is just the beginning. Having got the place they need to cope.

"The tutor was probably a waste of money."

That ( I say as a tutor) is a very sweeping assumption!

Who knows if the tutors hadn't indicated to the parents that the child might not pass.
Who knows what areas of maths and English the tutor has been able to give support in, whether they've sorted out misunderstandings, whether they've significantly improved the child's fundamental mathematical understanding etc.
In many geographical areas a child can achieve a technical "pass" at 11+ but not get a grammar school place because they just list them in order of marks and take the top however many scores. It is then impossible for the tutor to accurately judge which children will get a place as they would need to know how many children are likely to achieve a score above that of their student. Of course they can have a rough idea maybe from previous years, but all they could say to the parent really would be... " I think s/he should get a good pass mark, but I can't tell you whether s/he will actually get in."

It depends on the intelligence of the child and under the current system of admissions, how well they have been prepared for the exam. Having had experience of crap private schools and very good state ones, I don't think private is necessarily better. With a child at a grammar and at a comp, I don't necessarily think the grammar is better than a comp, just different and with more motivated (and middle class) children. Frankly even intelligent children need to do practice papers. A recent article I read in The Telegraph implied that a lot of children were scoring 99.5% in reasoning tests.

As a private school user in that area, I would guess that they would know the score. There aren't actually that many private schools in the area that do specifically aim to get children into the grammars. And I can think of only one private school child who got into the grammars without a tutor (but with a very motivated SAHM mother). But everyone I know was tutored either by parents or otherwise. Loads of parents naively assume that they can ensure a place at a super selective, but certainly by Year 4 they will have been disabused of that belief. Equally it is a bit of a lottery - for loads of boys it almost comes down to what the composition element of the exam is on the day. Some write well descriptively, some do better at reasoned argument, some prefer stories.

I might consider it a waste of money, but I'd be stupid to, because I should have known it was a gamble at the outset.

You can't turn an average child super-academic through input alone.

If the child is not academically able then no amount of money of money will change this.
School is IMO about turning out well rounded children and bringing out the best in them, wherever their abilities lie.

PushedToTheEdge and QZ, I guess we must be talking about different areas then. I'm guessing you're talking about the Surrey/Sutton situation? The LEA I taught in did prepare kids for the LEA grammar schools until they took the tests in Y5. All the primaries did and in fact there was guidelines from the LEA in what to do. In that area, those that passed went to the grammar schools and those that didn't went to the comp. Parents did tutor and use prep schools too though.

loving - I'm not talking about any area in particular :) I was merely poo pooing the commonly held view that a bright kid will thrive in whichever environment that kid finds himself

Oh I agree that's not always the case. I was referring to your point about state primaries not having anything to do with the 11+. Just saying that's not the case in all grammar areas. The super-selective situation in Surrey sounds terrifying.

Kent primaries have nothing to do with 11+ either. It is entirely up to the parent to prepare the child and fill in the paperwork to enter the test.
The school will invigilate on the day, but that's as far as they go.

PushedToTheEdge - tutoring will not make a child cleverer, it will make him well tutored. He will therefore be in a better position to make use of his intelligence in the way expected for an exam. Intelligence and exam technique are not the same thing.

As others have said the 11+ is meant to be a fair test regardless of primary school.

Tutoring and practice can improve marks a bit and a good education must help with the vocabulary needed for verbal reasoning.
But the child still needs the natural ability to do well.

DD1 got very high marks in her non verbal reasoning test for GCSE predictions having never practiced at all. It's just the way her mind works, I can do them too. Neither of us are quite as good at verbal reasoning.

Round here DC have to be really seriously able. There are nothing like enough grammar school places to take the old top 20%.

DD2 might have scraped it, but didn't want to. DD1 is dyslexic and didn't learn to read until 6 months after she'd have had to pass the11+ VR.

As for PushedToTheEdge's comparison between tutoring for school exams and university, I don't think that holds any water - a university would be letting you down if you were taught your chosen subject there in the style of a home tutor helping you to prepare for exams. I saw my time at university as a time of being encouraged along a path of study and reflection, where I was expected to develop my own, unique voice. I was never given model answers to questions, because at that level there is no such thing, I was just given the opportunity to present my thoughts, having done the relevant independent research, and defend them in front of an expert. Unless people pay Oxford dons to come in and talk to their children, or think they would be any good at teaching primary school children how to read, write and add up, I therefore don't think you can take the logic as far as PushedToTheEdge claims - you still need to be intelligent, not just well educated, to thrive in a good university.

This is a very contentious issue where I live. We have two excellent local grammar schools which always feature highly in the national league tables. Then we have a CofE comp which also holds an exam (and tends to take the next group who didn't pass for the grammar schools). In recent years the competition has been ruthless due to children being educated at private schools then for primary level then when the fees jump, their parents put them in for the grammar and this CofE school exams. Soooo this has made the competition for the local children who tend to go to the state primaries much higher. I have known someone whose daughter missed a place because the school was holding so many places for the private pupils (as it was known their parents would donate money).

Tutoring is common - I have no issue with tutoring at all. I DO have issue with children who are not local to the area not being top priority for a grammar school place and it goes to the country set who have been privately educated. When I was at the grammar school they took a percentage from outside the main town postcode and I felt it was fairer as we'd all taken one exam and then there were more (from what I gather verbally) from working class backgrounds. And frankly I think grammar schools should be for middle and working class who couldn't afford private schools. To enable the children who couldn't go private.

Having just done the round of entrance exams with DS2, I think that I would have been annoyed had he it got a place having been tutored and in private school. However, I would have expected to have had some clue that he was unlikely to pass or was borderline.

However, as he is one of the state primary pupils who got a place at a super selective grammar I feel rather pleased that I didn't waste money on fees for private primary.

"Equally it is a bit of a lottery - for loads of boys it almost comes down to what the composition element of the exam is on the day"

Absolutely. The English test I know DS2 did the worst in was the only one of the three he sat which didn't have a descriptive writing option.

There was an article in (I think) The telegraph last week about how you often need more than 99% to get a place at some of these super-selectives. One headmaster admitted that tutoring is a huge problem in that exam technique will always count for a lot (i.e. it's hard to design a test where the impact of tutoring is eliminated), and some children who get in will struggle later on.

"As for PushedToTheEdge's comparison between tutoring for school exams and university"

Rabbit - You are taking a comment I made about secondary schools in another thread and mashing it up with a comment I made about the 11+ and totalling distorting my position. Bad, bad bunny.

In the other thread a poster made the point that parents put their kids into expensive schools and they still feel the need to spend more money on tutors.

I was making the point that some academic private schools approach education like a university. ie the lesson introduces the subject and the pupil is supposed to do extra reading and to develop different perspectives. We don't use a tutor since DP and I are quite academic but we do 'tutor' DS by reviewing his work, getting him to restructure his essays, helping him with flash cards, teaching him revision techniques etc.

"As others have said the 11+ is meant to be a fair test regardless of primary school"

I've been in parts of the world where people don't queue. Its simply not part of their culture. Not bad. Just different.

You can be the tourist standing at the back or you can be up there at the front pushing in with the rest of us.

I don't think the 11+ is the be and end all. In any case there are vey few grammar schools now and most DC don't do that exam anymore. And I wouldn't personally go down the private school route.

However, if I lived in an area with either a grammar school and a bad comprehensive I might tutor in specific areas for a little while.

If he is then not passing I would assume that this is not the right school for my DS and that he would not be happy there. I would then look for a good comprehensive and drive/bus him if necessary.

I taught in a girls' grammar school and have seen some struggle with everything despite tution after school, their confidence was low - whereas they could have done very well in a good comprehensive, without tution and plenty of time to develop into a confident and well rounded individual.

If he doesn't get in doesn't mean he won't get good GCSEs and A-levels! You have to consider his interests and talents as well.