Tutoring and the 7+ / 8+ exams

[User44444]

What do you mumsnetters think of tutoring for these exams? I am following a 8+ thread here and another debating tutoring for 7+ Bute exams with interest.

My son just sat the 8+. He is at a pre prep that prepares boys. Although I had some serious concerns over the quality of teaching and preparation for the exams, which wasn’t great, I stuck to my guns and did not tutor. He is a bright boy and he works hard at school, we did all the homework and over the Christmas holidays in particular got our heads down with additional work using resources like Bond papers.

He did well, got invited for interviews at all the top 3 schools applied. One rejected him outright and he is currently on the waiting list for 2 of the schools. Not the outcome I hoped for but not disastrous.

Looking at the boys who were offered places none are particularly bright but all have been subjected to hours of extensive professional tutoring every week - for months! Some have hired so-called “super tutors” at sky high fees and even former headteachers to coach their boys. When money is seemingly no object....
I guess I just feel disappointed in these schools who make a big deal out of claiming not to want tutored children but year after year cannot see through the tutoring and seem to pick mostly heavily tutored applicants. It makes me wonder if they actually care or pretend to care.

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

Urgh, I am somewhat fed-up of meeting little dullards that have passed their 11+ after years of tuition, many hours per week spent on it.
They have no knowledge of anything im the world other than what is on an 11+ paper (or Saturday evening television).
The schools set children up this way, as they want pliant little workers whose parents will step in if the children aren't progressing at the expected rate, and buy in yet more tutors on top of their school fees.

I am yet to view a school that truly celebrates love of knowledge, intellectualism and seeks out those of profound natural ability that haven't been crammed for these tests.

[schoolmadness2016]

I find “usersxxxxx” condescending claims laughable that “a child subjected to x hours of work doesn’t deserve to be in a school” and a parent with an opinion and experience different from her own “doesn’t know anything about the education system in this country”. Who in the world are you ( or a school setting an exam for that matter ) to judge the intellect a child was born with?? or to asset that another parent is “delusional” . Jeez. The op has asked a question, wisely on a unanimous forum ( as previously mentioned no parent ever admits to this ), regarding parents’ experience of tutoring and the results that followed. Judgemental statements such as those above are not entirely helpful here.

[User870098543]

Thank you RedAndGreenPlaid! At last, some words of wisdom.
Njshore - ask to see the class list for new entrants at top London Day schools and you’d be hard pressed to find many British names amongst them.

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

May I ask, schoolmadness, why you think the term "natural intellect" is snobbish?

[User870098543]

Schoolmadness, sorry our posts crossed. You keep deluding yourself, if you wish, that your child is a genius because he/she got into a top school after hours of extra coaching. What happens when little darling is old enough to simply say no to the coaching? Each to their own...

[hhks]

I think it is actually deluding to convince yourself that British kids are not performing because all international kids are tutored? Do you think British kids are the brightest on earth? It's 2018, please google to see who are the smartest.

iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

Very interesting, hhks. How amazing, that the countries with the "super-crammer, got to pass to get into the right schools from age 6" education system countries are top of this IQ study, and the countries with the least spending on education, and the lowest rates of education take-up are at the bottom.
I would love to know how the researchers objectively measured natural intelligence of the general populations of countries as disparate as Japan and Benin, say.

[schoolmadness2016]

The fact, user, that you got from my posts that I think my child is a genius, tells me you yourself would need a few 7+ prep sessions in reading comprehension . My claim is that it’s impossible to assess who is a genius from a 7+ exam. The exams are structured to suss out focused and hard working children ready and motivated to learn in an academically accelerated environment. If you think the schools are only after geniuses I would venture to say it is you who is deluded.
To answer plaid’s question about the idea of natural intellect being snobbish - I think it’s the same idea as the class system - whereby a lower born child was relegated to a life of service while high borns can go to school and develop their intellect . I am of the belief that any child who has the focus required to be “tutored” successfully ( be it with a paid tutor, a parent or a hot house preprep) can attain the level required to gain entry and thrive at the top schools. Whether or not they are indeed mensa material will become obvious in later years and, I am willing to bet, will not be strongly correlated to their innate ability at age 6 to compose a descriptive page long essay complete with similes, metaphors and alliterations in 30 minutes while observed in a strange room by strange teachers .

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

But what of children of high natural ability, but no opportunity to be tutored? How is it snobbish to state that these children exist? (Albeit outside the rarefied world of 7+, 8+ etc)
Children that are exceedingly intelligent, but born to parents without the wherewithal to access top schools. The type of child that can teach themselves french or how to build a transistor radio from a library book, but don't even know places such as Westminster and At Paul's exist.

[hhks]

this is exactly we need to think and work on. IQ can be "developed" and it is often not “natural”, many early education theory would support that. Born genius are too rare, and without the right support or resources, their talents can be easily wasted.

have you looked at how American kids study to get into Ivy? oxbridge is way easier to get in by their standard. while other kids are spending their spare time "working hard", and yours "enjoying childhood", you can't blame why the offer letter didn't land on your doormat.

[schoolmadness2016]

Hhks, totally agreed.
Plaid, of course gifted children that you describe exist - and I would hope even without Westminster they will find their way to Ivy’s and Oxbrige or even, with some hard work, focus, and dedication skip those altogether and become great innovators such as Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg etc . Sadly, though, their numbers will not put much of a dent in the available seats at the schools we all dream of for our children .

[hhks]

RedAndGreenPlaid, please don't worry too much about those "exceedingly intelligent" kids, neither you nor I would have one in our life.

if there were such kids, they should follow state system, and get into grammar school, or apply for bursary at 11+ or 13+. I think we need a lot more grammar schools, especially in central london. but sadly, the great idea was killed politically.

[User870098543]

But Schoolmadness heavily coached children are mostly not “thriving” at these schools when they arrive unless the coaching continues which is so dysfunctional. I watch too many girls in my daughter’s class at one of the top London Day schools struggle through their school life, having been over coached to get there and it is depressing.

RedAndGreenPlaid another excellent post. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at some of the deluded nonsense touted here. For what it’s worth Hhks I don’t believe intellect is determined by nationality. You get intelligent humans from all races. The point I’ve been trying to make is that there is an unhealthy quota of overseas families concentrated in London who view places at our top institutions as some kind of trophy to be won at any price even if it means subjecting average ability offspring to ridiculous amounts of coaching. One Mum happily announced in this thread their 6 year old kid was doing 7 hours of extra work a week for a whole year with no sense of the ridiculous whatsoever!

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

I am wondering if you missed my sarcasm?

I have friends educated in the countries at the top of that list, and some of them feel that those crammer school systems there actually stifle thinking, and people just learn what is required for the exams, but don't "know" very much aside from that, and don't have particularly well-developed creative thinking skills.
I do agree that most of what one gets from education is correlated with how much work one does. Absolutely.
But inate ability is still a limitation.
I have seen dozens of children struggle in selective secondary schools, after being coached and coached intensively to pass entrance exams. They are forced into it by their parents who have a (social?) need to be able to say their child is in X school, whereas if the child were allowed to enter a school more apt for their talents they would be more confident, happier, and also like their parents a lot more.

[schoolmadness2016]

Oh, on the contrary, user, I am well aware of the ridiculousness . You see, you are missing the point of this thread once again ( at least the original question ) of whether or not it’s necessary to tutor to get into a top London day school .
The OP has asked this question because anecdotal evidence that she has experienced first hand ( if I understand correctly ) suggested that it’s necessary . I am simply just adding another honest data point here that, yes, indeed it is . I think it’s absolutely bonkers that 6yo need to be working this hard - back in “my country” we didn’t go to school until age 7! But being an “immigrant” I have grown quite adaptable to my new habitat. So when in Rome, you tutor your kid to get into a top school at 7+ and then sit pretty while others tutor doubly to get their kids in at 11+. Had I gone through the education system in London, I would have known even better and sat dd1 for 4+ ( as I did with my dd2 sans tutoring of any kind and ended up with the same top 3 girls school offers ). Live and learn .

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

hhks- I was one of those children, and there were no grammar schools where I grew up

[User870098543]

Ok you refuse to see my point that’s your prerogative. Good luck to your heavily coached children at their “top 3 girls school”.

[schoolmadness2016]

Thanks user ! My heavily coached son is absolutely thriving in his second year at the top selective boys school he’s in. I have no doubt my hard working, normal intelligence girls will as well.

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

User4444- I am with you on the whole thing about schools being disingenuous. They are genuinely not interested in inate ability, only children and parents that will jump through hoops.

My eldest is Y7, and was not tutored, but gained places at the three schools she liked, and wanted to try for. However, she is extraordinary.
(Natch )

[hhks]

back to the point, if the schools were interested in anything natural, they wouldn't have set questions 2 years ahead of NC. do they expect the 6 or 7 yos to teach themselves? if parents won't work their DC extra hours, how could they cover the extra 24 months of work?

Y7 is a totally different story, by that age, they should have come mature enough to know what they want. especially for girls.

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

they should have come mature enough to know what they want.

What does that even mean? Children that want to pass to Tiffin can do so if adequately mature?

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

We didn't tutor or prepare them for 3+4+ either, btw. Schools did seem to be better at selecting children that fit with their ethos/ideals at that stage though. Perhaps it's because pre-prep are on a smaller scale than secondary schools? (Though still a ridiculous number of people trying for each space available!)

[hhks]

No, it means they will be self motivated, and willing to work hard for the school they want to go. I remember at about that age, how much work I made myself to do because I want to excel in the selection exam.

At 7+8+, I dare say all the children sat the exam because the parents wanted them to.

[RedAndGreenPlaid]

Tbh, I don't see any difference at 11+ - those being tutored, 100% of those are doing it because it's their parents' will.
Some of DD's cohort were self-harming in Y4 and Y5, having already had tutoring for 1, 2 or 3 years.
They hated it.

[hhks]

DC went to non selective pre preps because when I learned the expectation at 4+ I decided to give up. Some school expect the 3yo to write down own names, count 1-10, know phonics, play puzzles, etc. And more importantly, they are not expected to cry when a complete stranger tries to take them away from mummy.

I found it impossible for DC, so we started reception completely blank.

But I do know parents hire tutor for 4+, because some schools don't have 7+ entry, only at 4+. And I respect their choice.