Confessional: I've booked an 11+ tutor.

[recyclingbag]

Starting in September, DS will just be starting year 5.

I have done this purely out of panic
a) if I didn't they'd all be gone by the New Year
b) everyone else seems to have one in some ridiculous arms race
c) I never want to feel like I somehow failed my child but not giving him the support we are capable of.

I'm disappointed in myself to be honest. I always swore he'd get there on his own ability or not at all.

It's a county grammar, so takes about the top 20%

I'm only posting here because I can't tell anyone in real life.

If I had felt confident in my own abilities to tutor my DD, I would have done so. But I didn't.

So she spent and hour a week, term time only (I don't believe in homework in the holidays if it can be avoided) for 6 months with a lovely tutor. She loved the attention. She enjoyed being given stretching work and getting credit for having worked well. Her 11+ results were fantastic. She will be among the brightest in her year at grammar and I don't see how tutoring will lead to her failing at grammar - that makes no sense to me.
The brightest get tutored as well as the weakest, precisely because there is no way for a parent to know where their child sits in relation to every other child and the 11+ is a competitive exam.

Now - it may be that with everything I have learned with DD, that I will feel confident to tutor DS myself when the time comes. I will certainly reconsider my options.

I've been in the hall when hundreds of parents send their children in for the entrance exam. I've seen parents break down in tears once their child is out of sight and in the exam room. The collective anxiety and stress was saddening.

I wonder what their children have endured for months / years and what expectation had been placed on them in the certain knowledge that 75-90% of them will "fail".

That worries me MN. Certainly here,- lot of children don't take it at all, so I doubt 90% will fail, but certainly a good percentage.

A lot of this is down to parenting rather than tutoring or not though. Some children will always be put under pressure by their parents, whatever system they are in.

DS has one friend who has been told he HAS to get into a particular school or his parents will have to pay for private which will be x '000s a year . It's so sad. They've been like this since year 2.

God help him if he has an off day.

I have another friend whose son was tutored, fully predicted to pass but he didn't. He had a cold on the day of the exam but has a go anyway.

They are all fine about it because they never presented it as a stressful pass or fail option.

I spoke to DS about it this morning and said DH and I had talked about it and what would he like to do.

He said he would like a tutor and reeled off half the people in his class who already had one - including one who was being tutored by their TA

I've said we'll try it and if he doesn't like it we'll think again.

Interesting thread....watching with interest. DS is going into yr 4 in September, so we're a year away from thinking about tutoring. My friend is a teacher at the local boys grammar - she does say that within the first term they can tell which boys have been tutored 'to within an inch of their life' because they struggle massively and end up in bottom set for everything, which feels pretty rubbish when they were considered outstanding for their entire yr6 because they'd made it into the grammar.

I suspect we'll tutor our kids (even though I was massively against it initially) - like others have said, to give them a level playing field (although my DH attended the boys grammar 25yrs ago and was never tutored, its so very different now). BUt I do think you have to weigh up factors such as what your child will feel like if they are in bottom sets at grammar (when they might be in higher sets in a state comp). Some kids it gives them a kick up the wotsit, but for some they will feel rubbish.

I didnt grow up in the county we now live in, and I still find it hard to comprehend the grammar system here - I hate that the comprehensive options are considered bad if you don't get into grammar, plus a lot of the state alternatives are still single sex, so my son and daughters potentially won't be at the same secondary school, grammar or not. I just don't get it - me and my siblings all attended the same comprehensive and loved it. (plus I was WAAAAAAAY geekier than my DH and graduated with a 1st from a russell group uni, he got a desmond at a 2nd rate uni having been to the grammar school. Grrrrrr.... )

sorry, that turned into a slight grammar rant there! Good luck OP, I think you're doing the right thing with the right approach

In any class, there are always top set students and bottom set students even nobody has been tutored. That's another question for the board line student, be a top student in a less competitive school or be a bottom set students in a better school. I guess it would depend on DC?s personality.

I felt just like you.

However DS is Y5 and has been having an hour a week with a tutor since December last year. He really likes her - he's a quiet sort, so getting a teacher's full attention for an hour a week is a new thing for him. We've said its not only for 11+, its for general life/school benefits too. Which is lucky as I actually hated the grammar school we went to look at, so even if he gets a place I don't know if he'd/we'd accept it but will cross that bridge if we come to it.

Anyway the tutor gives him sweets and explains things in a fun way and has a nice dog. What more could you want? He intends to keep going until hes in Y9. Not according to my bank balance he isn't!!! Clearly we have done a good job of keeping the pressure off him...

Sugar - that is so true (about the system changing). I also went to grammar school in the same LA, and it was just an 11+ exam - we (and parents) didn't know when it was, you just turned up at school one day and the desks looked different. No tutoring, no pressure, just a normal school day. I walked to school by myself - remember going home and telling my mum I thought I'd done the 11+ that day. She was as surprised as I was. And I think it was an hour, maybe a little bit more.

It is SO different now, each school has its own exam where we are, children will sit 2 or 3 (or even more) separate exams, plus the independents if you want. Children are bussed in for miles around (our local grammar had 1700 boys sit the exam for 180 places last year). They're usually held on a Saturday. Each school's exam is about 3 hours long.

Bit off thread there, sorry. But most people do it just to explore options. As others have said, it might not even be the right school, and people make that decision perhaps if they have the option.

I also think there is a difference between having a tutor for some of Year 5 in prep for the exams, and being "tutored to within an inch of their life". Certainly my tutor will only take children from the October before the exams - she says if you need to tutor before that, then the child is not generally suited to grammar school.

You terrible pushy mc mother!!!!! You are ruining your child's life don't you know??????
My DD loves her tutor and has never been made to go ( well Once 2 weeks ago when it was very hot and she wanted to sit in the paddling pool). She gets custard creams.
She takes the exam this October and we think she will be ok, she did a mock recently and did well but according to her most of the questions asked had not been covered at school but by her tutor.
My friend teaches at at local Grammar, has 2 children there and invigilates the exam - I just do whatever she suggests.
Good luck to your DS and everyone sitting the exam this year and in the future ( but not if you live in my town as you are the Competiton - joking!!!)

It must be nice for the grammars - most of their intake having honed their maths and English skills for a year or 2!

Exactly! Bellarom

My experience in a good primary is that able children do a lot of waiting around and getting bored. DD1 loved going to the tutor, I think she had about 13 sessions where she was in a small group of 2/3 children. She loved being noticed, challenged, having the attention, etc.

While those were "nice to haves," she could have learned what she needed if the school would have picked up the pace. It seems that whatever they say, the grammar entrance tests go beyond the normal curriculum as do the selective independent schools. Your typical primary school is not in a position to have the time or resources to help a group of the top 15/20% surge ahead. (I know, I know, differentiation, bla bla bla. It simply does not adequately happen, where I live. I am sure it does some places, but I am also sure there are many families in the same boat that we are.)

Our primary school doesn't do differentiation. I explained the concept to the head, but he didn't recognise it or show any interest in finding out about it. DC is very bored and frustrated.

I disagree with pink. I'm tutoring dd myself for various reasons and it's a nightmare! Given the choice we would have a tutor , I kind of look at her reasons and think the opposite!

I have read that tutoring increases a child's mark by 5 to 10 % max so is pointless for trying to get in a child that isn't capable! I am only working with dd for preparation, not for artificial inflation of her marks, and I'm pretty sure that's all that can be done so please feel relaxed and confident in your choice

I'm planning on doing something similar, the girls won't have any pressure on them they have been preparing without worrying about it and hopefully it will be an experience they enjoy.

But they know they are preparing for something, and as others have said the children in the class who are preparing know they are (even if it's not a big deal). So I'm not sure how these girls have been completely oblivious to the fact they are sitting it, even if they have only done a little practice for the test and have had no tuition, others in their class will have been making a big deal of it I have no doubt!

I agree that 'getting in on their own merit' is bs as most children (certainly in this area) will have been tutored for over a year prior to the 11+.

It's par for the course op, don't be ashamed!

We are in a county with grammar schools - my state educated DS has just got into a superselective grammar, and yes, he had an hour of 11+ tutoring in a group every week for a year before the exam. In his first 'mocks' he was getting over 90% before they had even covered all of the types of questions in the exams, so perhaps he could have got in without any preparation/tutoring, but I didn't want to squander his potential by not trying to provide a level playing field.

All of the (prep) school children in his new class were also tutored (as well as having the advantage of sitting in a class of 15-20 and being extensively prepared for the exam!). The state schools here ARE NOT ALLOWED to prepare their pupils for the test - so a child who has never seen a NVR paper would really struggle to answer the questions in the time given......the preps market themselves with their "100% grammar pass rate". Frankly if I was paying some of the fees demanded around here AND having to fund a tutor on top, I'd demand a refund but that's a whole other debate!

You aren't alone - and those who say they 'aren't tutoring' are probably doing papers around the kitchen table - which amounts to the same thing!

DD is going to a Grammar school in September. We had an excellent tutor for her. All he did was go over past papers and hone her skills. We initially did try this ourselves without a tutor and it ended in tears hence the tutor.
I agree with others, if a child does not have the ability there already no amount of tutoring will get them through the exam.

Also the questions on the papers are different to how they are taught at school. My daughter had never seen maths problems laid out like that before. Once her tutor had shown her what do, she just needed to practice and practice.

I think that most parents get the balance right but with an extra layer as a "cushion". So where 1 month would do, people do 3 months. Where 3 months would do, people do 6.

Frankly, I can't get my head around more than 6 months. That smells like the school isn't teaching the national curriculum well enough or the student isn't able enough. The only thing you need outside the curriculum is exam technique and some reasoning - it doesn't take a year to do that!

Doing a year or more is just a race to the lowest common denominator - taking part in the arms race. If you have done it can you genuinely say it was all exam practise or did it really include lots of booster maths and English (which should be all in the Nat Curr. anyway).

Obviously, I say this on my "high horse" ready to be shot down having only used 10 hours tutoring total.

The real issue is where the parents are so "invested" in getting their child into a selective school that they can't and won't contemplate that it might not be best for the child and their future studies.

PS - the prisoners' dilemma post earlier was spot on, but as when know, when a game is played only once nobody co-operates and the outcome is worse overall. Only when the game is played repeatedly to people take the risk of co-operating to get an around better result. Sadly, the 11+ is a one time only game .....

MN164, that's the point. Not all state schools are delivering all of the curriculum needed.

And, if your school isn't, most of us in London cannot just flounce off to another school. School spaces are tight. You have to take what you are given.

My DC attend a state primary where 15-20% go onto independent senior schools (a consequence of some crazy secondary arrangements in the area, but that is another thread!) They all have tutors. The school will not set, or differentiate enough to reach the level required to gain admission. In my cynical moments I think the school doesn't bother because they know parents will pick up the slack.

I think it also depends on the child (eg do they have a "love of learning, always have their head in a book, read encyclopaedias for fun!") and the parents ( taking kids along to improving activities every weekend eg museums, galleries, workshops).

These children, whilst they don't have a tutor, are immersed in activities that will constantly be "improving" them. They may only then need a nano second on a practice paper.

We did a year with a tutor. My DS has always worked at high levels but suffers from stress. The time with the tutor put him at ease. Different people have different reasons for tutoring and I think it's crass to suggest that if anyone tutors for more than 6 months they are in the wrong. Its also very naive to assume all schools are teaching to the level that is required. Fine, if your kid goes to a great independent or an outstanding or good primary. An awful lot don't.

I agree, people have different reasons for tutoring. And I think some schools do teach, as far as they are able, to the required standard. I have absolutely no doubt that my children attend the best state primary in the area. But they are restricted in what they can teach because of the curriculum - they have started to teach Year 6 maths in Year 5 to the top sets - but they can't spend time on NVR (they're not allowed) or specifically on the types of question that will turn up and the process itself (practice papers, timings etc). Here, and it may be different in other areas, children are "competing" to be in the top 10% of the children who take the exam and a very large chunk of students will be prep children where the teachers are not limited by the national curriculum. They could if they wanted to do nothing but practice papers for all of Year 5 (I'm not saying they do, but not far off!).

surely everyone uses the perks they get in life, I mean some people have a natural ability to do well and well educated and connected parents etc