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.

Pink that's nonsense.

You either agree with the grammar system or you don't. You can't say it's OK for some privilege and not others.

When I took it we ALL took it and had preparation for it in school. No one had outside tutoring and I do genuinely think it was as fair as possible.

That is not the case now - so hoardes of bright kids with parents without the knowledge or confidence to enter them for the exam miss out.

Or we all go to comprehensives.

Or private schools have to move onto to private secondary.

However the notion that the unfairness comes from purely the tutored, and not those who have hours of well researched parental input who happen to be qualified teachers is absolute rot and you know it.

However the notion that the unfairness comes from purely the tutored, and not those who have hours of well researched parental input who happen to be qualified teachers is absolute rot and you know it.

Spot on, OP.

What ds' tutor had which I didn't was experience and knowledge. I couldn't have hoped to aquire those skills so I paid for them (and will again for Dd only this time we are starting in YEAR 4-so shoot me. We are only paying for what dcs in private preps or even better state primaries get.

Lily - the point is quite simple. I disagree with people trying to buy their way into a state-run school. I've already said I don't actually think tutors are terribly effective (I'm sure some are, and yours may be, but lots aren't, and almost no-one can tell in advance). Meanwhile, however, lots of parents (like the OP) who read this stuff feel obliged to tutor their children, in some sort of tutoring arms race, where the children are stressed, and the parents are lured into spending money they may not have.

Everyone loses out - the children suffer with extra pressure, the parents pay hand over fist for what is largely low-quality tutoring and the schools intake is adversely affected (not least because all the kids turn up gibbering about entrance exams).

I'm personally not that affected in that, yes, I know how to tutor and so do not need to spend money on it. But I know lots of parents of bright kids whose children didn't get places because they relied on tutors instead of applying their own common sense and that makes me really cross. Cross that there is a whole industry set up to lie to parents and mislead them.

For what it's worth, I do practice what I preach. I've been offered lots of money to tutor other people's children. And yes, I probably could make a difference. But I won't do it - because it makes a mockery of the whole concept of grammar schools if they just become 'free' private schools for rich people.

I think the aspect of the system that means a child from a home with educated/ motivated parents, and/or the money for tutors can get a place when an equally bright ( or slightly brighter) child from a different background can't, really sucks and needs changing.
But if it was my child in that position, would I hell be using her future education to make a moral stance, I'd be right in there with the preparation/ tutoring. And anyone saying they wouldn't is either a liar or insane

A few "lessons"

1. I felt no obligation. I knew I could do it myself and didn't want to
2. Having the tutor made my child less stressed
3. The parents of bright chidren you know are obv a bit dim themselves if they blindly trust someone coming in for an hour a week and aren't involved in any checking of work etc
4. Don't tar all tutors with the same brush. Ours is superb.
5. Rich does not equal someone who can afford £30 pw.

Exactly lurked. The only people I've ever found who are principled on the subject are those who don't face the "threat" of a secondary modern.

FWIW, I was on the 1000 post thread recently ranting about how shit and unfair the grammar system is.

But rash clearly more fun to hoik up those judgy pants to beyond a Simon cowell rather than just admit you don't blame them. And yes I remember but couldn't remember which 'side' you were on.

Soooooo your kids are allowed to be tutored Pink but not others.

And again what advantages are parents buying if tutors aren't effective?

Rash - yes, the poor can afford tutors (some, not all - plenty of people couldn't find an extra £30 a week and you know it, despite your patronising Daily Mail-type comments about fags - because all poor people waste money on cigarettes, don't they? )

OP - You seem to think I favour a system which replaces paid tutoring with 'hours of well researched parental input' - I don't. I'd like to see the system that used to be in place, with more grammar places (so less panic about them) and either no tutoring, or minimal free tutoring for all children, to get them.

Alternatively, you could have a system like you get in Germany, where grammar-type places are allocated based on overall primary school performance rather than a one-off exam - and crucially, where excellent schools for those with practical rather than academic skills exist (and aren't seen as second-best, as they are in this country). I'd prefer that as it would remove the daft incentives we have to pressure 10 year olds to study for a one-off high-stakes test.

In the absence of that, I'm trying to do my own bit by advising others for free - I advise all the kids in my dcs' primary for free. I'm very knowledgeable about the 11+, yes, but I try to spread and democratise that knowledge as far as possible. I doubt you'd find a tutor who knows more about the 11+ than I do, but because I'm in that position it also means I spot all the bullshit claims that are made about the 11+ and preparing for it. It really isn't that difficult to learn how to prepare - but I want that knowledge to be available to all children, regardless of parental wealth (or prior knowledge or career). I try to do my bit on that - and am happy to share my knowledge with anyone else who wishes to know.

Rash -

1. Well, aren't you the lucky one. Clearly you don't give a damn about those who can't afford your options.
2. Given your comments on this thread about the nightmare that awaits children at secondary moderns, I'm not surprised your dc felt less stressed with a tutor!
3. Yes, not all parents of bright kids are that educated. Is this really news to you? And no tutors advertise that they're crap, either.
4. I've already agreed that some tutors are good. But where the 11+ is concerned, they're in a minority. This is because there are no qualifications for teaching the 11+ - VR and NVR are not covered in any teacher training course anywhere in the country. So every 11+ tutor is self-taught. Given the huge amounts parents are prepared to pay (partly because of 'panicking' threads like this one, lots of charlatans think 11+ tutoring is an easy way to make money. And of course they're right in that, at least.
5. No, rich doesn't = someone who can afford £30 a week. But lots of people can't afford £30 a week. And those who can should be spending it on quality time with their child, or a new pair of shoes, or whatever. Tutoring for the 11+ is a fundamentally pointless attempt to game the system.

pink nobody has said they prefer a system that's unfair, I'd like to see it changed. But for the kids about to sit the exam, noble intentions and wanting an educational eutopia just ain't cutting it. Asking for everyone of their own free will to agree to a preparation amnesty starting tomorrow just isn't going to work, even if you convince 100 parents, which is doubtful. And nor will having a go at parents who obviously feel it's something they need to do.

Well then let parents get on with it then.£20 in our case. £20 well spent as wherever they end up going it has been beneficial.

Clearly as far as you're concerned the £20 is wasted so I don't get your beef.

And saying rash doesn't care about the kids that can't afford tutors is irrational and rude

ROFL @ Daily Mail style comments. I'm a fully paid up Labour Party member, love. I was making a point, perhaps glibly, to illustrate that there is a mass of difference between being "rich" and "poor". Most people in this country are neither.

I think we all agree the system is shit. What we don't agree on is that you have no understanding of what it is like to live in the 21st century in a fully selective county. People aren't prepared to take the risk if there isn't a leafy comp as an alternative

Actually, Lily, if you read my posts you'll see I do my bit by advising others for free. So no, I don't think 'only my kids are allowed to be tutored but not others.' That would be you that thinks that. You're the one hoping that bright poor kids miss out on places so your child can get one.

For the record (I've stated this above too), although my dd is at a grammar because that's what she wanted, my first choice would have been a comp. I went to a grammar and was very happy there and am happy with my dd's school too, but I never fell into the error of assuming that just because a school's results on average were higher that any one child's results must also be higher there. As a teacher, I know that teacher input does not equal pupil output - how well your child will do at any school depends on what he or she brings to the table in terms of both ability and effort. Grammar schools get better results because they have brighter kids and kids from more educated homes. But they do not work magic any more than tutors do. Kids who 'just scrape' into grammar schools won't be transformed into swans that will magically fly - they'll probably spend the next 7 years scraping along the bottom of the school overall as well. It's worth thinking about how desirable that is.

Err no my DC flew in thanks.

Tutoring doesn't equals scraping in far from it. All the kids who got in with my DC were top group,bright,deserving kids( no scraping)- they were also tutored as the mag of the curriculum hadn't been covered.

My other child will be sitting the 11+ in Sep and has only just done long multiplication and division at school( some topics she hasn't even covered). I think we all know that the CEM exam is impossible if you can't do long multiplication/ division at speed. Do also tell us all how you're expected to answer questions on mean,median,mode when you haven't covered it ditto multiplying and dividing fractions etc,etc,etc

Where on earth do you get that I "don't give a damn about people that can't afford my options?"

I'm guessing you don't teach comprehension

So if these tutored kids are all scraping their way in then they aren't stealing a bright unprepared kids place are they? so no problem. Actually for all the unfairness of needing to tutor, the advantage it gives is only going to be over those equal or slightly more able than them, a child that's significantly brighter than them won't be effected, they'll still get a higher mark

Or teach 'reasoning'

Your response to point 2 is super offensive. And shows a clear lack of understanding and empathy.

I have never said that a nightmare awaits children who go to secondary moderns. I suggest you reread my comments. I have said my DD will probably attend one.

My DSs stress has nothing whatsoever to do with the 11+. It is around something totally unconnected, so your comments are crass and offensive.

Lurked - you're right, and I don't realistically expect an 'amnesty' (good term). I really hate the system we have now - I hate the way that people view what should be a measure of innate ability or potential as an exam of knowledge, to be seriously and conscientiously studied for. It makes a mockery of the whole thing. If there were enough grammar places for all that wanted one, then it wouldn't matter, but there aren't. So grammar tests are a zero-sum game, and pupils are ranked against each other. I hate the fact that 9 and 10 year olds are forced to learn fundamentally pointless things like verbal reasoning techniques (which they will NEVER EVER need in real life) when they should be outside playing. I hate that they - and their parents - are forced to undergo a very stressful exam when they are such a young age.

Rather than an amnesty, which I agree is not going to happen, I'm trying to push for the next best thing (well, until I become education minister and can scrap the system we have now). That is, I'm trying to democratise the system by opening up the process to general scrutiny. Tutors would like to pretend it's a closed shop because that makes them richer, but it really isn't. I could teach anyone to tutor in an afternoon. It's not complicated and many materials are available free. Total cost of materials if you bought them yourself would be no more than 1 or 2 sessions at most with a tutor. Or you could share them with friends and it could cost pennies.

I only object to people attempting to buy advantage because those options are not open to everyone. If everyone can tutor themselves, then I'd have no problem at all with those few rich and or mad people who chose to pay others to do it.

But many people buy advantages eg those that buy houses in the best primary areas, those that buy books to read from birth thus buying a better vocabulary or those that buy 11+ materials to use at home.

Whether you DIY or outsource it is tutoring and neither is more worthy.

All sorts of advantages that get DC into grammars are bought a lot earlier than a year before the exam.

Pink - you hate the system. I think you need to stop hating the people that live in the system proper and deal with it the best way they know how, be it by spending hours sourcing materials and papers and teaching their child themselves, or outsourcing it if they don't have time.

Your hate is misdirected.

Rash, "Where on earth do you get that I "don't give a damn about people that can't afford my options?"

From comments like this:

"And the idea that only the rich can afford tutors is bullshit. How much is a packet of fags now? £9.

How much is a tutor once a week? £30

Or 3 packets of fags.

It's about priorities. Sure, some can't afford the fags. But lots can."

I not only teach comprehension, I write the damn things! That's called spotting inferences, FYI.