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!

"It is a an absolute farst having a partial grammar."

I agree. We should have more 100% selective grammar schools :o

We tutored our DCs so not guilty of hiring expensive tutors. Anybody who has access to the Internet can tutor their kids. There are parent support websites that have loads of material to download and parents who are willing to offer support and help.

It narks me greatly when people go - "I'm poor and that is why my DCs don't do well at school". Or - '"Its is the fault of those people with money". Having parents who were poor and uneducated didn't hamper me much.

I agree it shouldn't hamper them but in my experience generalising an awful lot, poor people tend to have a lot on their plate just getting through life and anyone with less money right now will tell you it's stressful not being able to just make problems go away. Their energy is spent getting through the day and typically the DC's suffer rather than the people it ought be directed towards.

lovingthecoast I wonder if it makes that much difference really. I know some inner city schools are dire and feed into problem High schools but outside of that I am of the opinion that unless your primary school is "failing" and your child is of average ability or above then you should support your local school/community. Otherwise you are simply depriving your child of not only having local friends after school but of the ability to mix and get on with children who are not like themselves (which they will have to do when they leave school after all) and you are diminishing the experience for everyone else. Just my opinion.

"you should support your local school/community"

I'm reminded of that Blackadder Goes Forth episode where Blackadder is in hospital and is being asked by a nurse whether he had someone important in his life. He replied - 'me'. When asked other questions, he replied 'still me'

I'm obviously not your kind of person or parent but the most important people in my life are my DCs so my primary concern is to get them the best education possible.

PushedToTheEdge,

I know several poor families who were tutored by their parents for the 11 plus at Parmitars. It didn't work.

There are only 45 places up for grabs and in excess of thousand children applying. The majority of those children are top table children in primary school. I doult there are many idiots who would consider putting their child into such a fierce competion if they weren't already level 5 by year 5.

I wouldn't consider it a waste of money at all, but a valuable lesson that proves you can't buy brains

I would consider the tutors a waste of money, and that the kids just weren't bright enough. You can't just throw money at a problem and think that it will be sorted. Obviously the state kids WERE bright enough to pass, good for them.

"I doult there are many idiots who would consider putting their child into such a fierce competion if they weren't already level 5 by year 5."

A friend got in despite being level 5 at the end of year 5. Could it be that those parents you know simply sucked at tutoring? :)

I mean to say my friend's DS was Level 5 at the end of Year 6 which is only slightly better than the national average.

The state primaries have no interest in preparing children from grammars in sutton/croydon area. I think in this area there are a lot of private schools cashing in on parents desperate to get their children into these schools, many use this in their advertising.

The Grammar schools in this area are all super selective as they have all pretty much done away with any catchment areas. They are solely focussed on getting in children who will be able to make the results good for the school.

You would hope the Tutor would have been honest with the parents as they should have a handle on whether the children have the abiltiy to get through the test with sufficient marks.

Of course it's a waste of money if the tutoring was for the sole purpose of passing the 11+ (and not for fixing some specific or general problem area).

"I doult there are many idiots who would consider putting their child into such a fierce competion if they weren't already level 5 by year 5."

There is no time to wait for Year 5 levels though. The decision about whether to try for selective schooling or not has to be made much earlier than end of Year 5. Especially starting this year.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

With reference to Parminters and similar, can anyone explain the rationale behind the partially selective school?

Governments in recent decades have accepted that a 100% selective grammar school system is socially divisive. However, they also recognise that a 100% comprehensive system doesn't work.

A partially selective school is a compromise.

"You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"

True but then you are implying that there is nothing in between.

Selecting children by their eldest sibling's ability? Interesting. It might increase the school's chances of getting parents who are interested enough in their children's education to put them through an exam coming through their doors. Once one child has successfully passed the exam, it doesn't matter so much whether their siblings do or not, because the right sort of parents are already on the hook and the average intelligence of pupils in the school is probably pushed up by those who did successfully pass the exam....

'We should have more 100% selective grammar schools '
Yes!Yes!Yes!
Let the competition go on among the children, not their parents pockets.

A colleague of mine spent a lot of time preparing her daughter (herself, no tutors) to pass the 11+ - with the best of intentions. The girl did pass (as it's entirely possible to teach to the test), but is having an utterly miserable time, as she's out of her depth and not interested in the heavily academic curriculum. I would be more upset about a child of mine having a miserable time in a school that didn't suit them, than in hothousing them for a school that they couldn't keep up in. A good mixed state high school could be great for your friends' kids.

Curious - I second your Yes :)

When I was a kid the town that I lived in had a boy's grammar, a girl's high school and two secondary moderns. Because there were 50% GS/HS places available all those who would benefit from a more academic schooling got a place so there wasn't a need for heavy tutoring.

Kind of ironic that getting rid of one system because it gave a class of people an advantage simply introduced a system that gave people with money an advantage instead.

Fantastic - your story is more to do with a parent having unrealistic expectations of her DD's abilities as opposed to anything to do with tutoring.

We home tutored our DCs and they passed. This wouldn't have been the result if we hadn't tutored them for the entrance exam. They aren't top of their respective classes but neither are they struggling.

Speaking generally, if you heavily tutored your child while none of the other parents did then, yes, your child is going to struggle when placed in the same class as these non-tutored kids. But that is not the case in most selective schools.

Yes there are some kids that are so clever than they can turn up on the day with little prep and still ace the test. However, the majority will be kids that have been tutored either professionally or by their parents. If your child was aademic in the first place them there is no reason to suppose that they will struggle once they get in.

Mopswerver, I understand your point but I have to disagree.
To address your points;
1)We initially chose a large independent day school over our local catchment school which was graded outstanding. We went the independent route because I found the local primary too exam/sats focused. Two of my three school aged children are very bright and I didn't want their education to be so narrowly academic.
2)The day school was very local with many children walking there so they had lots of local friends. (we've since moved)
3)Our catchment was stupidly expensive. Most houses 500k+, many over 1m. Therefore, my children would not have had any more of a social mix had they gone to the local primary. There is always the assumption that state school=social mix. Whilst this may be true in urban areas, it's often not the case in leafy commuterville.

Can I just add a general point which I feel gets overlooked?

Lots of calls to bring back the grammar system to offer a superior education based of intelligence rather than parents ability to pay. Saying poor kids deserve chances too...This is all very well but what about poor kids who aren't academic? What happens to them? The grammar system may even up chances between bright affluent kids and bright poorer kids but will do nothing for the life chances of not so bright poorer kids.

Well it depends on what the alternative is - if its a very deprived school where your child might not get the attention they need or make friends with children you dont approve of - well then it may not be a waste.
However of they were sent to that school with the express objective of getting them into a grammar, well then its an utter waste.

Its more about the home than the school really

Surely a partially selective school like parmitars is more divisive. Houses that are in spitting distance of parmitars are very expensive. The rich can buy a house in a good catchment area.

I would like a bilateral system like what Ashlyns (Berkhamstead) had 50 years ago. The school had a grammar section and a secondary modern section. It was recongised that the more able child needed a different curriculum to a child with weak academic ablity. Some children are happier vocational courses like plumbing, hair dressing than being made to do Physics. In the first two years or so it was possible to transfer either to the grammar side to the secondary moden side.

I am sure that a lot of discipline problems are caused by making all children study the same curriculum.

Governments in recent decades have accepted that a 100% selective grammar school system is socially divisive. However, they also recognise that a 100% comprehensive system doesn't work. A partially selective school is a compromise.

I can't see how that is a rational compromise. If it is within a broadly comprehensive system, it simply means that some schools - schools that still have to cater for the full ability range - can pick a disproportionate number of able children. Leaving other local schools fewer able children than they otherwise would have had.