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).

[singersgirl]

Q, that's my point. Your daughter has not passed the test to this superselective grammar school so you're in no position to decide whether intensive tutoring is necessary or not. And I think you're doing that typical Mumsnet thing of saying that your very bright child is very average.

Of course children can just read books! But reading books is a haphazard method of vocabulary acquisition, whereas learning wordlists is not. Think of it a bit like those champion Scrabble players. They could just read books, but they learn dictionaries, because that means they know all the obscure words with 'q' in them that will get them extra points.

For many people, getting their child into Tiffin is a life's work. Think of Tiger Woods' dad and the endless golf practice from 3. Think of the prodigious musicians whose parents encourage hours of playing from practically infancy. It's about passing a very specific type of test and I'm sure the 10,000 hour rule applies here as much as in other fields. My child might be naturally very bright, but they might not be as fast as a child who's been practising for speed for several months.

I've never done flashcards with my kids either. And they didn't do the grammar school test. But there are loads of people who are doing it.

[mattellie]

QC, where we live I would estimate that between 75% and 90% of children receive some sort of tutoring, although in some instances this might take the form of doing practice papers with parents, not sure whether you would count that.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 11+ tests cover areas that are not covered by the NC - or at least not until later in Y6, after the 11+ has taken place. You would have virtually no chance of passing the exam where we live if you went into it having only done a handful of practice papers as there would be too many question types with which you would be unfamiliar.

If you think that tutoring makes no difference, you are in a minority of approximately 1, since every parent, school and even the LEA admits that it does. There's a quantative issue, to be sure, but nobody seriously doubts that it has some effect.

Incidentally, book reading alone is no substitute either. DD had a reading age of 4 years ahead of her actual age and can frequently be found lying on her bed reading, anything and everything, but she didn't pass her 11+.

[Quattrocento]

I've acknowledged several times now that certain grammar schools test knowledge, which is not taught in state schools. Which is utterly unfair and in those circumstances tutoring must be necessary.

My beef is against tutors for VR and NVR. It is entirely unnecessary PROVIDING you do the practice papers. Which incidentally is what the OP's hoped for grammar school told her as well. To whit

"i emailed the grammar school just out of interest and they said in response that the entrance exam was based on 'natural ability' and that one should not be tutored"

So I think parents are doing tutoring as a substitute for doing practice papers with their children. Which is outsourcing - just as I have chosen to outsource my cleaning and my gardening. But having a cleaner/gardener is in no way necessary - just a luxury so that I can have some time.

And of course if parents are not doing practice papers with their children, putting them up against children who have at least done some practice will mean that the results of tutored children will be better than those of untutored children. Doesn't make tutoring necessary.

Or even desirable. By outsourcing my cleaning, I get to come home to a nice clean house. No-one is miserable in this scenario. By outsourcing tutoring (or practising) you get to be miserable, you get to make other parents miserable and anxious and lord knows what impact it has on children who are having flashcards brandished at them at the age of 10.

[seeker]

Ok. Nobody should tutor. The advice is not to tutor, State Primary schools are not actually allowed to tutor. And if nobody did, then NVR would possibly be an almost level playing field. VR would still favour children from families which have books and read, and maths would favour children who go to schools where the topics tested are covered. But NVR might be fair.

But because some people do tutor, and tutoring makes a difference, at least, to speed and accuracy the test becomes automatically unfair - favouring children who come from families with the inclination, knowledge, money and confidence to prepare them for the test.

Privilege follows privilege.

[Needmoresleep]

Of course the Schools say tutoring is not necessary. They would be opening themselves up for appeal if they suggested a child's chances were improved by being tutored. Similarly state primaries cannot tutor either. However they must be used to kids being withdrawn from class in Yr 5 and 6 for extra tuition. Good results enhances their local reputation, so they wont object.

Actually I don't think children are at an advantage going to an independent Prep. Not in London. The prep's job is to prepare for Common Entrance. Most parents are not paying for their child to be taught how at the top of their abilities in VR and non-VR, but learn some French and history. Some private schools will be better at 11+ than others, depending on their normal destination schools, but few are going to bias teaching to the extent that Tiffin requires, and the homework load and longer school day will make tutoring harder.

I am irritated Quattrocento's insistence that a couple of Bond papers will do, and her refusal to confirm whether she lives in the South East. There is a real problem. My view is that one reason is patches of really poor State provision. There is no moral high-ground in that where I live anyone with any knowledge and ambition has played the system to some extent, whether it is paying, going to Church, renting a flat, or tutoring.

If you dont acknowledge there is a problem you cant do much about it.

The Tiffin exam was very strange.

We go on the busy commuter train, having bought an A-Z which covered Kingston in case we could not find the school. We need not have bothered. When we came to change trains there were several mums with 10yo boys sitting on the platform. At each stop more got on until the carriage was full. When we got to Kingston it was like a version of The Day of the Triffids, with 1,100 mums with boys walking slowly and nervously towards the school. Some mothers literally sat outside the school wailing and crying with anxiety for the whole three hours. Boys broke down in the exam room.

My son had only done a couple of Bond papers. On the way home we other mothers were quizzing their sons on whether they had remembered bits of exam technique. (If you run out of time you tick Box a on the rest, and you should pick up at least one point in five - that sort of thing.) My son looked pale as he had not known to do this.

He failed the exam by a very small number of mark. I know someone with a similar lack of preparation whose son failed by just one mark. I have no doubt that both boys would have got in had they been a bit more prepared and would have thrived.

It did not matter for my son in that he has gone to a very good Indie close to our home. He is a boy who likes education and is really happy. The problem is paying for it, which is a struggle. It was much tougher for the other boy who became lost in a large comprehensive.

Perhaps the emphasis should not be on allowing bring disadvantaged kids access to Indie schools or to Oxbridge, but actually looking at how they can best access selective secondary provision. Even the train to Kingston, Wallington or Sutton costs money that poorer families dont have. Denying that there is a barrier in terms of tutoring does not help.

[Quattrocento]

Aye, I don't dispute that Seeker

I'm sorry to have irritated you with my insistence that tutoring isn't necessary. We just all speak from our own personal experience - and mine was that it wasn't, whilst you, I think feel that it was.

We spent no more than 10 hours in total doing those Bond papers, five Saturday mornings in two one-hour slots. The GS in question is categorised as a superselective (although not Tiffin). And DD really truly isn't a brainbox. I did take jolly good care to ensure that she had enough exam technique - IME most exams are about that, even at university - and we practised timing and question recognition. That's all we did.

[bibbitybobbitysantahat]

Yanbu, op, the whole system is hopelessly skewed, almost corrupt.

My dd is super-bright and in Year 5 and if we lived in a grammar area then I would be going through all the torment about tutoring or not. I am completely against it in principle.

As it is, I am hugely releived that I do not even have the choice .

The system needs a major overhaul.

[Notevenamouse]

Needmoresleep your description is very interesting and similar to our own experience. My daughter saw one child vomit in the exam room and another faint. No extra time was given to the children as a result of this distraction. My daughter had to do the exam next to a pile of sick. Parents were hysterical outside the school some loudly sobbing. It was a dreadful experience even though we had down played the whole thing. My daughter is very calm and level headed child but by the time she got home she was in pieces. Unfortunately, she had to go through the whole experience several more times. There was not a single exam that children were not removed from because they were crying or could't cope. It is a terrible thing to do to ten year old children.

[seeker]

But quattrocento, what you were doing was tutoring. 10 hours of past papers, exam technique, timing and question recognition. That's what people go to tutors for!


And that is what is not available to bright children from disadvantaged homes whose parents don't have the knowledge, confidence or interest to provide it for them.

[oldandgreynow]

SEEKER-So what is the third meaning of 'sage'- I only know 'herb' and 'wise'?

[oldandgreynow]

I live in an 11+ area my 2 eldest were not tutored in VR and nonVR they didn't need to be, they understood what to do as I think most kids would.I got practice 11+ papers and I think they had a go at 2 or 3 of them to build up their speed.
But I have relatives nearby who don't even bother to get their kids practice papers or leave it way too late.

[Quattrocento]

BTW, there were no fainting or vomiting or crying children (or parents) when DD did the 11+.

[confidence]

I don't really get what all the anger is about, TBH. Some parents are wealthier than others, and some parents care more about their kids' education than others. Those that have both the means and the will will ALWAYS put resources in that those who lack either or both won't.

Even in a purely comprehensive system, as exists in some counties, there is segregation by postcode as parents who can move into wealthier areas to get their kids into "good" schools. The question is not whether the grammar school system is fair, it's whether it's more or less fair (and more or less effective) than the alternatives.

We're in East Kent, where fortunately 25% of kids still go to grammar, so that rather reduces the tutoring culture. It seems that the places where it is worst are where you have one or two super-selective grammars catering to a whole county. Which is a good argument for either scrapping grammars altogether, or having more of them.

We had a tutor for our son for the 11+, once a week for two terms, but she wasn't very good and to be honest I did most of the work preparing him myself. He walked it and probably would have passed without a tutor.

I'm not sure about the whole three times a week from year 3 thing. My son got a bit overloaded by it all just from what we were doing and it started to become counterproductive. I'm skeptical of the degree to which a kid who really isn't up to it can be made up to it by sheer force of work.

There's a whole cultural issue at play though which is more diffuse, but no less powerful. We have brought up our kids since they were born to be excited about learning, to value knowledge, to experience reading and music and arts, to converse intelligently and to be comfortable with silence. We have no TV, and they have limited access to computer games, DVDs etc.

We read to them every night, and then they read alone in their beds. No media in their bedrooms. When they're interested in something, we talk to them about it, and spend time doing it with them. Preparing for the 11+ was largely just an extension of this culture which has always been a natural part of our family life anyway.

Am I "middle class"? Probably, whatever that means. Do I accept the implication that I am somehow responsible for compromising the prospects of other children by giving my own an "unfair advantage"? No, not at all. What I accept, reluctantly, is that I happen to live in a society where many peoples' idea of parenting consists of sticking their kids in front of some kind of media from dawn till dusk to keep them out of the way, while shovelling garbage into their mouths every few hours.

Very few of the things we do to actually RAISE our children cost much money. Most of them just cost time, effort, sensitivity and will. Yes, it's true that there are many families who probably couldn't afford the weekly tutoring fee that we paid, but I think that's being made into a bigger part of the issue than it really is. The truth is that we live in a very diverse society full of not just disparate wealth but disparate ATTITUDES to education and lifestyle. Of course these disparities of attitude will affect the children brought up within them. How could they not?

But it's bizarre how people so often react to this by blaming the people who are doing it right, and presuming that all the people who aren't are helpless victims.

I also reject the idea that all kids who don't get into grammar school are being told they're "failures" and "written off". There are plenty of good non-grammar schools in grammar areas, and particularly of course where there are only a few grammars taking the top 1 or 2%. If schools are not good, the answer is to make them better - and that depends on whatever children are there and their parents, not on the people who aren't there.

There are also plenty of children who go to secondary moderns who go on to have highly successful careers in all sorts of fields. My in-laws' family includes one who is a headmistress and one who is a billionaire international business tycoon. Many kids around here go to secondary moderns, DO thrive academically and then transfer to the grammar school sixth forms.

I don't think any education system is perfect but the grammar system is probably no more imperfect than most. Inequality is a social and economic issue, much more than an educational one.

[GrimmaTheNome]

Similarly state primaries cannot tutor either.

Why on earth not? They used to. Back in my day, AFAIK no-one tutored their kids for the 11+ because the school did it, and we all had a shot at the exam.

If grammar schools are part of the state system then state primaries ought to prepare children for the 11+.

[mattellie]

grimma, they're not allowed to because the official line is that tutoring does not make a difference. Everyone knows thatit does, but if the LEAs start admitting as much openly, it will bring the system into disrepute.

QC I'm sorry but it is not just a matter of opinion. The vast majority of people involved in education accept that tutoring makes a difference, even to VR and NVR. In Bucks there is a study which confirms this, but it's not general knowledge for obvious reasons. As to whether it's necessary, well maybe not, but if 75% of your little darling's class are having tutoring, it's a brave (or poor, which I think is Seeker's point) parent who consciously takes the decision not to do it.

[MrsGuyOfChristmasBorn]

OAGN - not usre if you got an answer to the sage thing - thre meanings, - wise, a herb and a particlurly pukey shade of green you'd never want to wear - asked DS - he knew of them - he is 10, but he does read a lot. also know that sage is a 'false friend' in French, as I say to him sometimes, 'sois sage!' which does not mean be any of those three things!

[seeker]

The anger - well, my anger anyway - is about a system that was specifically designed to help disadvantaged children being hijacked by the privileged. I think anyone who does not feel angry about this has either got a very skewed set of values, or has not thought about it very clearly.

2% free school meals in grammar schools - 13% in the total school population. Says it all really.

[GoldFrakkincenseAndMyrrh]

Re the sage question does it ask meaning or definition? That's the kind of trick a tutor knows to tell a child to look out for.

VR is very easy to tutor for/prepare at home but not solely by reading lots (although it helps). Bilingual/multilingual children sometimes have an advantage although usually where they speak a Latin or Germanic language. The earlier you start preparing children for those tests the better by focusing on increasing vocabulary, talking about the meaning of words etc. Some parents are going to do that naturally, some will do it with a goal in mind, others have no idea and pay someone who does (a tutor) from an early age but for many it never crosses their mind until it comes to the exam when all that is compressed with exam technique. All those children have been prepared in some way, shape or form so I don't see how anyone can argue that VR is innate/there's no need to tutor because I'll bet the people saying that have been unconsciously preparing their children since birth.

Whether that's fair or not I couldn't say (although it would support the educated middle class parent theory) and wouldn't want to but if grammars exist they have to test somehow....

[shirljon]

My first ever message on Mumsnet! What about all those local authorities which do not have grammars? I could look up the figures but it would take too long. I'm sure we outnumber the ones who still have grammars. We are the ones who have REAL problems. Our own choice was between a comprehensive which is in special measures or pay to go private. That makes passing the 11+ look like a softer option!

[seeker]

I don't actually believe that the only state secondary school available to you is in special measures - you would have to be very unlucky - IIRC there were 50 secdondary schools in special measures last year - so you would be very unlucky indeed if all your local schools fell into this category.

[mattellie]

In any case, the answer to comprehensives being rubbish is to improve them, not to propagate a system which creams off the top whatever percentage, thus making it even harder for the upper schools who are denied access to the most academically able in grammar school areas.

Our local school was in special measures 7 years ago but thanks to a brilliant HT is now over-subscribed, so it can be done.

[GrimmaTheNome]

grimma, they're not allowed to because the official line is that tutoring does not make a difference. Everyone knows that it does, but if the LEAs start admitting as much openly, it will bring the system into disrepute.

Pretty disingenuous, when back in the 70s they knew they had to spend time familiarizing us with the tests.

[shirljon]

There are 3,308,300 pupils in secondary education in UK and of these 158,120 attend grammar school.Not even 5%.
My point is (I think) that there are huge numbers of pupils for whom their nearest comprehensive is the only choice in real terms.

[oldandgreynow]

The official line is that it defeats the object of separating the wheat from the chaff if some are more coached than others.

[oldandgreynow]

BTW they all do familiarisation tests