angered by tuition for grammar school 11+

[kelway]

i was curious but does anyone else here feel the same in being frustrated with overly pushy parents who get their offspring heavily tutored (ie 3/4 nights a week after school for at least 2 years before taking the 11+). I constantly hear of girls getting into our local grammar school who were not as clever as other girls in the same class at school but who were overly pushed by their parents. Subsequently it feels like the local grammar school has been almost 'hijacked' by such people who can afford extra tuition. I always understood that grammar schools were for the more gifted student that perhaps had parents that could not afford to send them to a private school. Our local grammar school has become very elitest. i get the impression that the way i feel is pretty standard of most mothers of girls where i live (if your child isn't tutored however bright they are they stand no chance of getting into the local grammar school).

Go outside ?

see I was thinking that the 'wise' meaning was really only one meaning (albeit once in nominal & once in adjectival form). I was wondering if there was really a third wholly separate meaning.

alot of it, at least where i live, has alot to do with background/culture. some cultures put alot of importance on education for varying reasons, which i both admire and agree with, in part. whilst say my child generally plays after school, some children will instead go for tuition/have homework set by parents, something i have first hand experience having observed through my daughters friends, some from as young an age as reception. our grammar school has mostly girls (around 90% if not higher) who are not of english persuasion. Possibly alot of english girls seem more interested with their social lives/appearance instead of being at home spending their time at home studying.

But that's the point! It shouldn't be about the parents - it should be about the child. Or this whole thing about giving children a step up out of advantage is complete bollocks. It's outrageous that a clever child with feckless parents has no chance of a grammar school education. I can't understand why everyone can;t see that - to me it isn't even a matter for debate.

Quattro, the three sage example you gave didn't make sense. Almost every noun can be made into an adjective or a verb; it doesn't change the meaning or root of the noun. The meaning remains the same.
So in your example, there are only two meanings to the word sage.

The only way I can see that would becompletely fair, is to create more grammar schools.

The school we applied for openly states on it's website that they expect more children to be deemed suitable for a place than they can offer places to. That just seems so wrong. It's no wonder that parents resort to tutoring. They are not being coached to pass the exam, I expect many of them could manage that without additional help. They are tutoring to try and ensure their child scores way over and above the pass mark, because that is the only hope they have of getting a place.

Ds1, who has AS, is very bright, and I truly believe that the grammar school will be the right environment for him. He could achieve just as much academically in the top sets at the local comp, but I want him to go to the grammar because of everything else it will offer him. Incidentaly, I don't think it will be the right environment for ds2, even though he is bright as well.
I do believe that tutoring makes a huge difference to the scores children can achieve, it teaches them how to pass the exam, not how to answer questions correctly. What hope have I got of being able to teach my child using a couple of books from WH Smith compared to a professional. The cost of the books would put alot of very attentive parents off anyway at £10 a book. That's £30 just to buy one for each of the subjects, and only one practice paper included in each.

And of course prep schools tutor! Anyone who thinks otherwise is very naieve. They want their pupils to get into selective independant schools or grammar schools, being able to say that a high percentage of their pupils get sought after secondary places is one of their biggest selling points. I went to a private primary, and even back then (20+ years ago)those of us that were taking exams for selective schools got extra attention in Maths and English lessons, go given different work and were introduced to NVR/VR when we'd never heard of it until that point.

No, the oly way to make it completely fair is for there to be proper comprehensive schools open to all with proper streaming so that children get education at the level they need.

I see what you're saying seeker, but that would mean huge schools, and some children simply won't thrive in an environment that large. And I don't believe it's all about academic education, some children need strong pastoral care from their schools, simply because they spend so much time there and do so much growing up there, and I just don't think that can be achieved in a school with 800 - 1000+ pupils.

But a lot of grammar schools are that big - and bigger!

Are they? I only really know about the one that we are in the catchment for, and it's got 400 ish pupils. The fact that the comp has over 1000 is one of the things that scares me tbh. I was lucky enough that my parents could afford to send me private and the school had 200, which is probably why I find the local school a daunting prospect! Otherwise, I'm more than happy for my two to go there, it has a good reputation thankfully.

My dd's brammar school has 1400 pupils!

What made you decide to go for the grammar over the comp, just out of interest?

Because there are no comprehensive schools in this area. Kids pass the 11÷ and go to the grammar schools, fail and go to high schools. Yo can't have a comprehensive school if the "top" 25% have been creamed off to be educated seperately.

At the risk of sounding arse-licky, I agree with every word you say seeker.

Why do these threads - and the faith school ones, and the private school ones - end up so personalised and touchy, with people saying, "Why are you having a go at me for just doing my best for my child?" I understand anyone doing what they have to do for their child - if I lived in an area with grim schools, and could afford private education, I'd not rule out going that route myself - but it wouldn't absolve me of my responsibility to critique the entire system. I moved house to get my child into a halfway decent school. I'm not proud of it, not ashamed of it either, but it sickens me that I had this option and so many others do not. Just because my child is ok doesn't let me off having a social conscience and a moral responsibility.

Fair enough seeker

There is so much difference between areas, not just good schools v bad schools, but in the whole system that underpins them, it's so wrong. If we moved 20 miles away we would have a choice of 3 or 4 grammars, and some very good comps, but where we are there's one of each and that's it. Even then I consider myself lucky because the local school is good and one that parents have moved to get into. It's a truly ridiculous system.

ok, so people like seeker justify their choice to allow their child to be 'creamed off' by saying they have to because otherwise their own child would be in a sink school, which would be unacceptable. By that logic, presume they also defends people who choose to send their children to fee paying schools for the same reason?

Nope. I justify send my child to a grammar school (with some difficulty - it was a very hard decision for us, and I have more than once said on here that I am still very uncomfortable with it) by pointing out that there is no comprehensive school in our area. If there was, that is where she would be going.

"Sink school" is a ridiculous, emotive term. The high school where many of dd's friends go is an excellent school. The only think it lacks is the "top" 23% of its possible intake.

I still take issue with Quattrocento's point about tutoring and, indeed, about the three meanings of the word 'sage'. Actually, though many 12 year olds might know them, my own (at highly selective independent school, though admittedly not the child with the widest vocabulary in the world) couldn't think of 3; bearing in mind that many children are only just 10 when they take their 11+ exams, I think it's pretty hard.

I would be marginally more interested in Q's point of view had her daughter passed the entrance exam to, say, Tiffin, after the 4 practice tests. If you ever visit the terrifying 11+ exams website you'll see that very focused parents on there teach their children vocabulary words daily in and out of context (suggestions are made for lists, flashcards and games); they practice question types intensively until the child is superfast with them.

Remember, in a situation where the majority of children are tutored, while the truly exceptional child might get in without any tutoring at all (and I include in this intensive parental tutoring), one or two marks makes the difference between success or failure in the exam, so some parents are prepared to do all they can to give their child the chance of getting that extra mark.

''ok, so people like seeker justify their choice to allow their child to be 'creamed off' by saying they have to because otherwise their own child would be in a sink school, which would be unacceptable. By that logic, presume they also defends people who choose to send their children to fee paying schools for the same reason?''

My attitude seems to make me a bit like seeker. So, yes. If the system available is not what you want, then you make do. If we had a comprehensive school, the dcs would go there. We don't. So one is at grammar and the others will be sent where is most appropriate (out of a second best system).

Flashcards for 10YOs. Whatever next! Why not just let them read books? If a child is well-read they pick up loads of vocabulary naturally and might just be enjoying themselves in the process.

My mind is literally boggling at the thought of having some overpaid tutor hellbent on exploiting parental paranoia flashing flash cards at 10YOs.

You think it's necessary. I think it's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Shall we agree to disagree?

I agree with Seeker's contention that the education system is something we should all feel invested in. Although in the interests of complete openness I should probably explain that DD does not attend said grammar school.

I personally grew up in an area of comprehensive education only. The LEA is in the top 10 in the country. Lots of my fellow pupils went to university and at least one or two a year went to Oxbridge. Many chose not to bother as like me the courses at other universities suited me better. The education I received was brilliant and has helped me cope very well in the work environment and at university. Nobody bothered applying to neighbouring LEA grammer schools in those days. We were set for every subject which enabled some to take their exams early and the top set for English was different from the top set in Maths which gave people the chance to shine in different subjects. There was an emphasis on core academic subjects and help was offered for those kids at sixth form college who choose to go to Oxbridge including an optional latin O'Level. I see no issues with abolishing grammer schools if all comprehensives are streamed for different subjects. It is far better than creaming off those whose parents can be bothered at 11 and brings the power back to the child to decide whether they work or not which will give them a much better way of coping in the workplace. My Dcs will go to the same comp and I am happy with this LEA and their choices made. As long as grammar schools continue, inequality will continue.

singersgirl I think you are right. Our local grammar schools have a pass mark of around 98% They have 120 places. More than a thousand children enter the tests. For this reason the 121st child on the list will have scored 97% and failed to get into the school. The schools have no catchment area so children come here from london just to enter these tests. Their families then buy a second home in the locality if they pass.

Notevenamouse, you may be talking about the same grammar that we have applied to. AFAIK, more than 120 children could well reach the 98% pass mark. But they simply don't have enough places to offer them to all the children that get a high enough grade. So the pass mark then goes up.

Could be, but many are the same, or so I hear. We have friends in various grammar areas all over the country. We all have children taking the exam this year. We all have much the same experience. They system has got silly IMO

*The