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.

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

Indeed. One child I know who got a top top score in the 11+ recently didn't have a tutor. He does have a mother who read to him in the womb, allows no electronics, spent years enriching his learning with various opportunities, and spent much time and effort doing 11+ learning and practice with him.

But it's OK as she didn't pay a tutor.

There is no inference that I don't give a damn about people that can't afford tutors in that statement, pink.

That's not inference. It's incorrect assumption.

"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."

Lurked - 2 problems with this.

1. There are only a finite number of places. It doesn't matter if a tutored kid gets a place at the top or the bottom, they're still taking one of a finite number of places.

1. Those places near the cut-off mark should be equally open to all kids. You appear to be suggesting that as long as super-bright kids can get in without tutoring, it doesn't matter if some averagely bright kids miss out on places to children of lower ability. I don't understand why that should be fine, in your eyes. All places, surely, ought to be allocated on strict grounds of ability, not just some?

. It doesn't matter if a tutored kid gets a place at the top or the bottom, they're still taking one of a finite number of places

What about a tutored by a parent kid? That's OK, is it?

That's it though pink it's not the people who are tutoring that are the issue, it's the system that makes it necessary for many and the exam, which I agree should be ability, allowing tutoring to give an advantage. Not the parents who just want their child to have an equal shot with the majority of other children they're competing with.

The people that I know that can least afford it are the ones that often pay for tutors, because they don't feel confident enough in their own abilities to teach their child, either because they have feisty kids, or because they failed the 11+ and have lost confidence in themselves, or because they don't have time as they work FT, have other kids etc.

The people that I know that DIY are the richest.

Rash, I don't think you can exclude 'life' from the equation. Because all children have lives. But you can exclude tutoring, because not all kids are tutored. Ideally, you would exclude tutoring by creating an exam you couldn't or didn't need to tutor for, or a different method of entry that didn't just involve a single exam. But in the absence of that, you could remove tutoring as a factor by ensuring that all children had free access to tutoring. Schools don't usually teach towards the 11+ because it's pointless (see post above), but what I'm describing is a situation where all parents know how to prepare for the exam and can if they wish, for no or low cost.

I prefer that to your approach, which appears to be a Gallic shrug and a 'Well, I'm OK, Jack."

Rash - don't agree with your comment about those who DIY - I'm very far from rich!

But for once you've written something I agree with - I do think it's often the poor who can't really afford it who are pressurised by threads like this into thinking they've failed their child if they haven't tutored them. They're the ones most likely to employ poor quality tutors because they don't know how to monitor what the tutor is doing, they don't understand the system. The kids get let down by the system twice over - they don't get the educational support and their parents are down £30 a shot. So less money for essentials. I certainly know parents and kids that fit that description. And that makes me really angry and sad because if only they knew, they could manage it perfectly well themselves.

Err no many couldn't do it themselves for a variety of reasons.

I said the people I know are rich,pink, not everyone. You do extrapolate my comments incorrectly a lot.

You know nothing about me and it is laughable to assume that I have an Im OK Jack attitude. Couldn't be further from the truth.

I think tutoring is fine.

However, I'm always surprised at the opinion on here that everyone is tutored for the 11+. Where we are (in Kent) I don't know of anyone using a tutor, most people worked on the NVR/VR questions over the summer holiday before the test, and at least one boy didn't even look at an old test paper.

Just saying.

Yes pink and that's where the issue is, that one equally bright child gets a better chance than another if they're both at the cut off point. And there are a million and one other reasons why the grammar system is unfair, just like selection by postcode is in my area. But tutoring your child just means you are creating an even playing field against all those other kids, most of whom are tutored too, so blaming the inequalities in the education system on other parents is irrational.
And with the paying/ doing it yourself thing, it's morally no different cos either way it amounts to the same thing.

"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."

Rash - you're right here too. I don't actually hate (!) - strong word!! - any of you. But I do hate the tendency of this thread to normalise and glamorise tutoring. If you choose to make that choice for your child, I understand - but when you try to persuade everyone else to do that too, then you just up the ante and the exams get a bit harder and the kids get a bit more stressed and the cut-off marks get a bit higher...and so it goes on, year after year. In my area, the kind of mark that would have got you a place in the top school a decade ago would not even get you a place in the worst of the selective schools now. That's how bad grade inflation has been. The pressure is relentless. And it continues and will continue year after year. The schools have tried to halt it temporarily by introducing CEM exams, which are supposed to be harder to tutor for, but in some ways, that has just made the tutoring frenzy even more manic than usual. And it's the kids who get harmed by all this.

I'd always wanted to send my dd to my old school, one of the top grammars in the country. But after visiting I reluctantly had to change my mind - it had gone from the totally laid-back place I attended 30 years ago to a stressed-out exam factory. It was horrible.

I really, really hope we see a change to the system so that good - great - schools are available for all kids, including the non-academic ones. But I'm not holding my breath.

LilyTucker - why do you think they couldn't do it themselves?

Genuinely interested. What do you think makes it impossible?

Because actually, whichever way you look at it Pink, the grammar system, just like everything else, comes down to having active and involved parents.

Your system, however revolutionary you think it is, is actually just as unfair. It still does nothing for the really bright children whose parents don't give a shit. Who don't want to put the hours in, or download free resources, or get Wind in the Willows out of the library.

The system sucks for those children and they are being failed.

But this is my child and as unfair as the system is for those children, that is the county I live in. I am an involved and interested parent and will do the best I can for my child. It sucks but I don't know what else to do.

You can go on and on about how angry it makes you but what you have done is no fairer on those other kids.

Time (2x wp equals little free time)

Cost of materials

Knowledge of what to teach

Some of it is quite hard and if you are filling gaps you're talking level 5/6 maths and literacy which may be beyond the education of many,particularly those that left school a long time ago.

recyclingbag - sort of true, though the fact you can't make it perfect is not an excuse for failing to make it better, in my opinion.

I actually think it's perfectly possible to tutor oneself, effectively. That's basically what I did as a child (uneducated, non-native parents, read everything, came top in 11+). But those kids can be reached in other ways too eg through schools, for example. They are certainly not an argument for accepting the status quo.

I don't think everyone should tutor nor have I tried to persuade anyone that they should. I have stated that it worked for me, and isn't evil. I've also said its perfectly possible to DIY. I've said that from the start.

I really object to you attributing comments to me and making judgements about me which are totally incorrect.

I actually think it's perfectly possible to tutor oneself, effectively. That's basically what I did as a child (uneducated, non-native parents, read everything, came top in 11+). But those kids can be reached in other ways too eg through schools, for example. They are certainly not an argument for accepting the status quo.

I don't get this. You are saying that a 10 yo can research what practice papers they need to do, source them, mark them, and teach the gaps? Kids can't be taught the 11+ at Kent schools, it's illegal.

My husband is a nightmare trying to help DS1 with his maths. The methods are so completely different that he just ends up bewildered and they end up just shouting at each other.

Exactly Rash. Baffling.

Lily - time is a bugger. But I'm a working mum and the advantage of doing it yourself is you can use time much more effectively - you can test something while you're waiting for a bus or whatever.

Cost - nah, negligible if you do it yourself. If a few friends all do it, the cost is literally pennies.

Knowledge - agreed. That's why I'm trying to share the knowledge! Because there's actually far less that parents need to know than you appear to think.

Even maths and literacy - I think many people forget that we're talking primary school stuff aimed at 10-year-olds. Even parents who didn't study English or maths to any sort of advanced level should be able to cope with what they need to know to teach a 10-year-old. The only people I leave out of my comments is non-native speakers. I do totally understand why they use titors as tutoring English or VR must be phenomenally hard if English is not your first language. In that situation, paid-for tuition might well be a valid way of making up the difference. The new CEM tests seem even more a test of white-middle-classedness than the old ones!

Rash - no, I'm not saying that. I admit I was probably I tad unusual. I read everything. I read books of IQ puzzles for fun. A somewhat eccentric child...

The fact that schools can't offer 11+ tuition is not a given - it's done routinely in NI, and I read somewhere that it was being extended in England. Can't remember where.

recycling - it can be done! Don't despair. Not only can you or your husband learn how to do it, but you can even all enjoy the process too!

I actually think it's perfectly possible to tutor oneself, effectively. That's basically what I did as a child (uneducated, non-native parents, read everything, came top in 11+)

Do please explain what you mean by this pink