11+ tutoring

[Llanbobl]

DH and I have had a difference of opinion over tutoring for 11+ exams in Sept. DD is educationally able to cope with a Grammar school ed as she was achieving Yr 6 KS levels at end of Yr4 and has continued to develop in Yr5.
DP is against tutoring and I tended to agree with him - it should be on what a child is able to do so they can cope if they get a place. however am now having a HUGE panic - we've got practice tests etc but I'm struggling to explain all the strategies. So do you think it is worthwhile getting some tutoring sessions during the summer holidays? And does anyone know any tutors in the DN22 7 area (north notts) - if so would you pm me their contact details or link to website etc - thanks

Granted everyone is entitled to their opinion, but where did we ever get the idea that all opinions are equally valid?

All evidence based research says tutoring works. Opinion based upon personal experience actually isn't evidence!

@Hopefully - re your lone voice of sanity comment, it must be nice to have such a strong, albeit delusional, self image :o

I've read similar comments from one poster about tutoring. I later read that her DC is at a pass/fail school ie its not particularly competitive and one merely need to achieve the 60% pass mark.

For some of us 90% is the pass mark and if you are just average 'bright' then you aren't going to hit that mark without some kind of tutoring, even if its the home sort

^Oh cobblers. What nonsense. If a child is bright enough, they'll get through no bother. And I'm talking ordinarily bright, not ivy league bright.

There is a difference but it is at the margins. If your child is at the margins, just think about the impact upon your child will be - being bottom of the class for the next 5-7 years. Reassess your ideas about tutoring.

^

Says she whose child did eight practice papers - eight more than you would have us believe are necessary.

Well, my child is certainly bright enough- and did some practice papers. But still failed.

THANK YOU SEEKER!!!!!

OP, you may find this thread interesting.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/a1515357-Average-ability-kids-at-grammar-schools

I say Tutor - without a doubt. Yes of course there is the odd Einstein kid out there (the odd). But not as many as people like to make out.

Even parents giving their kids practice papers, or who were secretly buying extra books in Smiths throughout the year is a form of tutoring. Good tutors usually have a number of methods up their sleeve too which is useful. A couple of level 6 questions are thrown into these papers as well, which is not taught at school.

I was a bit naive - I think I assumed that mine would automatically pass because she was so far ahead of most of the others. But no - it doesn't work like that.

I suppose it depends how bad you want your kids to go to grammar. There are quite a few people out there who seem to think that the comps/non selective academies are inferior and that their kid will end up on drugs by the age of 14 if they let them through the gates. I don't hold that opinion which I suppose is just as well really!

ian35mm That actually isn't teh case with VR and NVR. Research says that after a candidate has done 5 practice papers no further advantage is gained by doing more.And after doing just 2 practice papers hardly any more advantage is gained.
I think particularly with NVR you either have a brain that takes easily to it or you don't.

This is a direct quote from Buckinghamshire County Council.

Egan and Bunting?s study compared groups of children who were coached for at least a year, with those who had had no coaching. Pupils with higher ability benefited most from coaching, but that even when ability was accounted for, most children could double their scores as a result of coaching. The significant gains in scores attributed to coaching would have meant that, regardless of ability, none of the pupils who had not been coached, would have achieved a score in the top 70% required for selection into grammar school.

? Other studies, though not involving pupils of the same age, and involving tests of a slightly different nature show the same trend, i.e. that coaching can have a significant impact on scores in reasoning tests.

? The current research evidence would suggest that unless you can ensure equal effectiveness or access to coaching, then you cannot make assumptions about ability based on the verbal reasoning tests.

Let's look at one bit again,

'most children could double their scores as a result of coaching.'

I looked out some sample 11+ papers and did them. I made mistakes! . It was because I found the questions ambigious - I wasn't steeped in the culture of the test.

All exams require particular techniques - this one certainly required very different techniques to those used in DS1's classroom (so far as I can tell from his homework). I would certainly not put my son in for these 11+ exams without being confident that he knew where the examiners were coming from.... so that rather points to a tutor .....

In addition, in Bucks (just VR atm - who knows next year when it changes), all children will have done three familiarisation papers before the tests, so it isn't just about doing papers.

Tutoring covers far more than simply working through practice papers.

This is the reason that the whole 11+ system is invidious. Affluent and/or middle class families have the scales weighed in their favour because they aree mor likely to

1. Understand the system, or know how to find out about it
2. Either have the money to access tutoring, or the understanding/education to tutor at home.
3. Are more likely to have the sort of homes where books and reading are commonplace, and where 10 year olds are likely to have the sort of esoteric vocabulary which you need for the VR papers.

Which is why the % of children on free school meals in state selective schools is vanishingly small- despite the politicians and the apologists protestations that the grammar school system is an engine of social mobility. It may have been once, I don't know. But it sure as hell isn't now!

@Seeker, tend to agree with you for the most part. I personally know of parents who had the means to spend £40/per hour, three times a week for a tutor leading up to the grammars and all their kids got offered places as well as those who could afford private primary school. And yes you're right also, in terms of environment, that kids from more affluent homes tend to have a wider vocab which is beneficial for VR. I wanted to start a national campaign that parents should be means tested.

I must admit though, I have preached until I'm blue in the face to parents from less privileged backgrounds about the benefits of doing extra work at home and starting early with free resources. They make all the right noises and do nothing about it. It's so difficult to change a culture.

You know, I used to agree with your dh. I used to think if they're bright enough they will get in without tutoring, and if they need a lot of tutoring to pass, they won't cope when they get there.

I think completely differently now. I really believe that if you put your child forward for 11+ exams, you owe it to them to give them the very best chance of passing. There are no guarantees about anything but why on earth would you leave it to chance and not make sure they are as prepared as they can be? Even with tutoring, if they're not bright enough they won't get in. You can't make them be what they're not but for a bright child who is perfectly capable of getting in, to deny them the very best chance because of 'principles' is madness imo.

Personally, I've never believed that the 11+ was an effective means of social mobility. Bright middle class children have a massive advantage over bright working class children, in all tests.

The system in Bucks is different from many other areas in that it's an 'opt out' test. Unless you specifically withdraw your child, then s/he will sit the test. The 'pass' mark is now around 90% and this leaves very little scope for making mistakes, or poor time management (average 38 seconds per question).

My approach to tutoring is a combination of Montessori education and sports coaching. Lessons are structured, and distractions reduced to a minimum. The tasks are broken down, analysed and practiced in parts. Then the tasks are reassembled and transitions between tasks worked upon.

When the child sits the test, s/he will know exactly what is required in each of the 21 types of questions, how best to tackle each type and (if necessary) which questions to do first. They will even know how best to fill in the answer sheet to minimise wasted time.

Most of all they are learning the techniques of learning and focus.

Effective tutoring is rather more than simply going through papers, it's about becoming a more effective learner.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to observe a class of Yr6 children doing their familiarisation practice papers at the school where I was a Governor. Those who had been tutored were very obviously better at doing the test, regardless of ability.

For an analogy, think of a fit strong child who has just been taught to swim compared to an equally fit strong child who has been a club swimmer for some time. If you were a betting person, which child would you put your money on?

ian35mm
I think you are misreading what teh research is saying.Some pupils doubled their score after being given access to familarisation papers and coaching.We don't know what % of the improvemnet is down to the familiarisation papers done!!!Since ein Bucks all children are supplied with a free pack of familiarisation papers then theu all get the opportunity to practice.
In addition other research (eg Kenny) has shown that coaching does not produce statistically significant improvement.

Those who had been tutored were very obviously better at doing the test, regardless of ability.

This is a great shame and would explain why grammar schools have a big problem on their hands now. The sooner an exam which cannot be tutored for is released the better.

Well, let me put it this way.

I see a 30% improvement in scores between the sixth and ninth month.

What that means for 'my' parents is that for their children the chances of passing are (based upon around 160 children over ten years (I didn't keep records before then)) in excess of 80%.

It is statistically demonstrateable that some schools do better than other, and success is related to the Acorn groups their school's cohorts fall into.

In my daughters class in year 7, 12 out of 30 children came from independent schools where they were taught how to do VR tests from Yr2.

The regulations in Bucks explicitly state that the techniques are not be taught, just the procedures of the test.

The implications of suggesting that tutoring does not work, are that middle class kids are innately brighter than working class kids. Every bit of data from Bucks County Council shows that there is a huge disparity in success in the 11+ dependent on residence. Either the test is teachable, or the children of poor people are, quite plainly, stupid.

I personally do not believe this to be true. Rather, it is possible to buy advantage - tutoring is part of the cultural capital that gives advantage in our society.

Your dd needs to have practiced some papers, but she doesn't need to be tutored - you can do it yourself.

We have been through practice papers with ds2. He passed the mock, I have no idea whether he'll pass the real thing, but I also am not completely convinced the grammar is the right school for him anyway. I don't think it would be if he needed lots of tutoring on top of practice papers. IYSWIM.

And yes a few people have looked at me as if I have two heads when I've said we haven't sent him off to a tutor for a 18 months in advance.

(Do wish the ruddy exams weren't in September though).

Oh I do agree with ian35mm (just read the posts after posting mine, sorry). I suppose in our case - I'm not prepared to buy a place - by which I mean I don't think the grammar would be the right place for ds2 unless he can get in without massive amounts of coaching.

We are in the position of being very happy with the alternative school though - and he should get a place there.

Oh the grammar school ds2 is going for has got rid of VR and replaced with English as they reckon it's harder to coach for English. I'm not convinced, ds2 has improved a lot with practice and feedback from us.

I do think the 11 plus system is deeply flawed though. So we are engaging with it reluctantly.

All the research on the subject of coaching for VR/NVR tests agrees that significant improvements are seen in performance. The only debate is over the magnitude of that improvement.

My view is that, the brighter the child, the bigger the improvement; bright children pick up the techniques quickly. However, put a bright, untutored child up against an average, well coached child & you'll be tossing a coin with your DD's chances.

At Dds grammar school 1200 pupils take the test.
There are 180 places.
And 15%of those go to music students.

Not one single child in DDs year was not tutored.

Ds1-1211 hopefuls-175 places. Again all tutored.

Sadly it seems it not enough just to be "bright" in north London.

Llanbobl what we noticed was that our DCs who were all uncoached emerged much further up the rankings with CEM computer tests than NFER hand-written ones. Over time and observation of schools friends have DCs in, I have a suspicion it may say something about the school that chooses one over the other test as to their ability to teach untutored kids with potential.