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!

Our trouble is locally the only outstanding state schools are the grammars, even taking away the exam results it's obvious that the parents want their children to go to the best school regardless of their academic ability.
What you pay for with an independant education is not necessarily the exam results at the end it's the child reaching its potential and that is priceless IMO

"I now don't think abiity at age 11 is an indicator."

I disagree - it is an indicator but it is not a guarantee.

I'd consider it a waste of time and money if they pass, if a parent is doing everything to get a kid into a school that really wouldn't suit them in the end.

I agree with soup dragon. There will of course be some children who are late bloomers, but generally people are inherently bright or they are not. When I did the 11 plus in northern Ireland many years ago, it was more like an iq test and you either grasped it or you didn't. I am not sure what format the tests take now.

No matter what school they should honestly assess a child in year 5 to see if they are suitable. Mine went to a local primary & is going to grammar. I think a good primary Is just as good as a private & half his class passed.

Hi, PushedToTheEdge - I didn't actually mix two posts. I haven't read the other thread you posted on. I was referring to your post on this thread, copied below:

""I think DC either have the 'smarts' or they don't. You can't make them be clever."

It makes me laugh whenever people post comments like this. If one follows this logic to its conclusion then there is no point in trying to get into a Russell Group university since it adds no value over a course from say Thames Valley University and your DC is going to emerge at the end of 3 years with the same 'smarts' regardless of which route they took.

Granted, a selective school and/or tutoring isn't going to make a slow kid clever but it will make him cleverer relative to his untutored state."

And I don't agree that not queuing is not a bad thing - particularly when not queueing is attempted in a country which queues. Very bad form.

My mistake rabbit

You said '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'

True but I wasn't comparing the way universities teaches and the way 11+ tutors teach.

I am merely stating that a good university will take a bright kid and get him to question his own preconceptions, to form new ones and generally end up making him 'cleverer' than when he walked in the door in Year 1.

I moved my children to private primary.

I will not feel it was a waste of money if they do not get into the selective secondary (former grammar now private) where lots of the kids go.

DS1 was "bottom of the pile" and given up on. Moving him to his new school he now:

• is learning how to learn (extremely important IMO!)
• is finding out what his strengths are, and gets recognition for that
• gets extra help with his weaknesses
• is learning to be more organised
• gets to do sport in the school day, which I think is a good thing 9school should be about hard work but also about fun)

He will probably go to the local State Secondary, but I hope that his attitude to learning will help him have a good start there.

Our selective LEA has a mix of primaries which do/do not prepare for 11+. The test doesn't have the same content as SATS tests, so v tough if kids aren't taught and prepared specifically for 11+

our local grammar school is mega oversubscribed - so the pass rate can be exceptionally high. So getting into the school is more a reflection of the schools popularity and not an indication that a child is not bright enough - just not as bright as the ones that did get in.

I would consider it a calculated risk, - and all you are doing is just trying to increase your childs chance of getting in that school. Like all risks, you should always have a back up plan.

Plus, if the private school and tutor were any good - then your child would have had some benefit from it which should have a knock on effect on their future education. So not a complete waste.

Interesting thread. we live in Bucks, so a "standard" grammar county rather than having a few superselectives.

A lot of the parents I know who have older children than me say the only way into the Bucks grammars is tuition because the maintained schools aren't allowed to teach for the exam. Some have teacher parents so the parent does the extra studying with them, but others have been sent to the local prep. I went for a look round out of sheer nosiness (and wanting to see just how much better the facilities were) and came out and given what I'd had at primary state school (ahem) years back. They seemed to have sent the yrs 7 and 8 out on a trip that day. I suspected it was just so we couldn't see how few were left after the majority left to go to grammar school.

I think that private primary is a tremenous investment if you have a really dim child. The children may not have passed the eleven plus, but at least they have learnt how to read and do basic maths. The children will be able to hold their own easily in a decent set in a comprehensive.

I feel sorry for the children being made to work so hard and then fail an exam that was impossible for them. I don't think their parents wasted money on the private education, but the tutor should have explained that their child is as thick as pigshit and that no amount of tutoring will get them through the 11+. (Obviously using more tactful language)

Failing the eleven plus after so much preparation must knock a private school child's confidence to pieces. However I suspect it would be worse for them not to be able to keep up at the grammar.

That is nice, really tired, talking about a "really dim child"....

My child is in a situation that you describe, he has dyslexia which I guess some people would just call a modern label for being dim?

It is irritating for parents of SEN children to hear these constant references to "dim kids"and "thicko's" etc.

I have worked with children age5-11 and never met a dim kid. Some have aspergers or dyslexia, some seem to develop at a later age than average, some struggle with reading for a bit, some are scared of maths, some have a difficult home life and cannot concentrate at school.

But I can say hand on heart that I have never met a kid where I just thought he was " just dim"

People can be so ignorant.....sigh

I have this horrible feeling that this thread is about to be hijacked and morphed into one of this threads where posters are flamed for not using respectful terms to describe 'SEN children'.

By the way, various posters got jumped on for using the term 'SN children'. Yet here you are using the term 'SEN chidren'. Does the extra 'E' make it 'respectful?

But I can say hand on heart that I have never met a kid where I just thought he was " just dim"

I came home one day to find that my at the time newly employed part-time house keeper had forceably stuffed two pillows into one pillow case leaving me with a very bulbous pillow.

Perhaps I should introduce you to her. You will never be able to say never again.

Is your housekeeper a kid then?

About 19. Why? Is it ok to call grown ups 'dim'?

Some children are slow learners. They don't have dyslexia or autism. Their brains just work at a slower pace or they have weak memories. These children don't have special needs and can easily be catered for in the lower sets of the comp.

A slow learner benefits from a private school where the tiny ratios allow for lots of over learning and there are no distruptive kids. In a class of eight with a TA it is quite possible to get a child with a low IQ up to a level 4 by the end of year 6. However a more able child might get a level 6 in such an environment.

There are some children with autism or dyslexia who would thrive at a grammar school. They might have problems with spelling or social skills but there would be no issue with keeping up with the class academically. Many children with special needs are extremely bright. Having special needs does not equal low ablity.

The brain is a muscle if you don't use it you'll lose it, it stands to reason therefore that both memory and speed of learning can be learnt and improved.

As for private schools being full of dim kids, given the fees it's highly likely the parents will have a high earning capacity and that will benefit them more than anything else in terms of life chances, intelligence almost doesn't come into it.

Did the tutored/privately educated kids benefit from it? Going to the local grammar may have been the goal for the parents, but presumably the kids have gained a benefit other than that. They may learn the lesson that money can't get you everything, at the least.

Agree with littlegnu and pushedtotheedge It is arrogant to assume that money can buy everything but it's typical of a growing middle class attitude that their DS/DD will have the best of everything, courtesy of their chequebook.

Ask yourself this. If you were a great teacher, someone who believed in Education and what it can achieve, where would you be teaching? Little prep school or State?

Outside of the very best private schools I think it is most definitely a waste of money.

Heswall, ofcourse private schools aren't full of dim kids. However the offspring of the rich aren't always ultra intelligent. Just look at the Royal family.

Genetics is weird and sometimes a family on benefits produces a child with Oxbridge level intelligence. Conversely bright parents don't necessarily produce bright kids. Luck has a massive role to play.

Different people have different views on what is a waste of money. Different children have different needs. However, when it comes down to whether paying for private school plus a tutor is a waste of money, my view would be affected by the child's reaction. If the whole thing was done by brow beating an unwilling child into doing lots of extra work and tuition on top of school work, or on the promise of something that wasn't actually achieved, or via the creation of fear on the child's part that his future would be blighted if he didn't pass the 11 plus, and it therefore affected the child's self esteem, then I would consider that to have been a waste of money. If all this effort was like water off a duck's back and the child wasn't at all bothered by going off to the High School, then it won't have done any harm, so would have been worth the risk. I doubt the latter would ever be the case, though, so it's a question of how much harm appears to have been done to the child's view of himself and his intelligence as to whether it is worth it. So - how good a job has the parent made of not giving the impression to the child that the grammar school place is hugely important when so much money and time has been devoted to attempting to get a place at the school? And does the child think he has let his parents down at the first hurdle?